When Tsarist Russia fell and with efforts of various parties and numerous representatives coming from all walks of society – from writers to generals, from rich to poor peasant activists – arose a free Ukraine, it appeared that a national revolution will quickly solve all immediate problems.
But a different turn of events took place…much different. Historians still argue as to what was the main obstacle – an objective or a subjective cause. It appears, however, that today all pundits concur with the following: in contrast to Finns or Poles, Ukrainian politicians at the time could not force personal interests backstage, in order to dedicate their efforts towards pressing national interests.
What, if anything, has changed from back then? Regarding the subjective cause – almost no progress was made.
Covering each another with dirt and lies (especially those who up until recently were if only nominally sincere supporters) are skills at which our politicians excel. But it seems that the subjective of the new Ukrainian history has tangled too much with the objective. Here you may draw your own conclusion.
For Victor Yushchenko, Hetman Pavlo Skoropadsky - head of a Ukrainian state in 1918 – is perhaps the most dear personality amid Ukraine’s 20th century history. At least in his Maydan or plaza speeches, Yushchenko almost daily mentioned Skoropadsky, seldom – [Mykhailo] Hryshevsky, and never [Symon] Petliura or [Volodymyr] Vynnychenko.
Apparently, such a loyalty has underneath itself not only a personal identification with, but also something more serious, perhaps some fundamental intellectual positions. In fact, Pavlo Skoropadsky held right-liberal economic views, valued strong state government, tried to have good relations simultaneously with Europe and Russia, developed in Ukraine a national culture, and at the same time respected accumulated Russian culture. Finally, unlike most of his contemporaries, the Hetman highly valued family and Christian religion.
Victor Yushchenko and Pavlo Skoropadsky are akin not only due to the above. The Hetman sincerely tried to unite everyone on the grounds of civic patriotism or what today is called – one political nation.
Discussions about “purity of Ukrainian blood” did not apply to him, although absolute majority of the Hetman’s government were ethnic Ukrainians. Yet, amid the bureaucracy and the Hetman’s surroundings dominated individuals whom their contemporaries called “Ukrainians by blood and little Russians by soul.”
Olygarch’s existed at that time, too. They were oligarchs of “Protophis,” and they did not care whose feathers to pluck and under whose flag, as long as their own pockets stayed full. On the other hand, it can reasonably be said that individuals such as Dmytro Doroshenko, minister of foreign affairs, Dmytro Dontsov, director of information agency, and a handful of military élite were guided by national interests. Others, if they were patriots, did not belong to a group of professionals, and if they did then the reasons to call them, first patriots, second people of integrity did not exist.
The economy of a Ukrainian state under Skoropadsky, as today, is exports-oriented. Its rapid growth was due to Ukraine’s supply of food products to countries of the Alliance; Ukraine also sold coal, metals, wood and other raw materials.
But from such a swift economic growth benefitted only a small percentage of the population, and majority of Ukrainian citizens only became poorer. The Hetman’s good intentions to raise the well-being of all Ukrainians cut into the territory of oligarchs, and as a result (according to a diary of Dmytro Dontsov) Skoropadsky entered into conflict with even his main social support base – rich peasants or today, village middle class.
That is why the Hetman who was brought to power thanks to the mass of support given by villagers, relatively quickly faced a number of opposing groups:
Firstly, Bolsheviks sent by Moscow and headquartered outside the territory of Ukraine.
Secondly, Ukrainian socialist and national-democratic parties, with whom for a long time Skoropadsky tried to find common interests.
Thirdly, various anarchic and radical-revolutionary groups strived to overthrow the Hetman who was seen as “a puppet of German imperialism.”
And finally, for political forces oriented to “white” Russia, Skoropadsky looked as a traitor, mazepalike, divider of “great and indivisible Rus.”
Pavlo Skoropadsky as an individual and by his political views was not a revolutionary or a dictator-autocrat (although Dontsov recommended to Skoropadsky – unsuccessfully – to rule without approval by other governing institutions).
The Hetman was a supporter of conservative-evolutionary reforms; whereas in Ukraine in those times, majority of national intelligentsia and social underclass demanded revolutionary changes. And indeed, as was said before, net national income was distributed unfairly with the majority of population becoming poorer and political élite becoming fatter, and under such conditions government change was not possible.
And so not incidentally, it was the socialist forces led by Volodymyr Vynnychenko that became most involved during the second part of the Hetman’s rule. These forces demanded an assembly of a National Congress, which would take upon itself real governing rights and responsibilities from the Hetman leaving to the latter some pseudo-democratic functions.
By the way, existed during those times such an organization as “Fatherland,” which at first partly supported the Hetman, and then switched into radical opposition. But the main opponent of Skoropadsky became someone self-centered with revolutionary leanings and who thought that not the Hetman but he personally will save Ukraine. The name of this individual was Symon Petliura.
After lengthy political perturbations, negotiations, changes in government configuration, and efforts to create a strategic unity among those forces upon which relied Skoropadsky and Petliura, everything ended with an explosion. The Hetman fired his government containing representatives of Petliura’s team.
Petliura and Vynnychenko, who loathed one another just as much as Tymoshenko and Medvedchuk, entered into an agreement. A new government, appointed by the Hetman, took the course for a federation with “brotherly Russia” – in effect, the course was for a confederation, alike to modern Common Economic Space.
In response, Directoria – controlled by Vynnychenko and Petliura – with support from almost all pro-Ukrainian opposition forces (socialist and moderate) started an insurgency against the Hetman. Through the society opened a deep line of division, which was used by all who were not lazy enough – from “white” to “red,” from anarchists to monarchists. So the journey began…
…And in exile, in the end, landed both Petliura and Skoropadsky.
