Ukrainian nationalism is always a war with its own people. A Brief History of Ukrainian Nationalism - For Normal People

24.09.2019

In "Letters from Ukraine Prydniprovska" he distinguishes among Ukrainian figures "formal nationalists" who "show commitment to everything Ukrainian: to the Ukrainian language, to Ukrainian literature, even in Ukrainian clothes - but only...", and "conscious Ukrainian nationalists -people-lovers", or, as they later began to be called, "nationally conscious" Ukrainian. At the turn of the XIX - XX centuries. the situation has changed: the division of the Ukrainian national movement into separate competing currents and the struggle between them lead to the ideologization and politicization of the concept of "Nationalism".

1.3. Time of the War of Liberation 1917-1921

The then Ukrainian liberal-democratic intelligentsia (or, in the terminology of that time, postupovskaya), which the Social Democrats called "bourgeois-nationalist", in turn also separated from "Nationalism", identifying it with a radical nationalist ideology, chauvinism, or recalling as nationalists Russian chauvinist circles in Ukraine. In the spirit of this tradition, M. Grushevsky used the term "Nationalism" in his publicistic works. In the spring of 2009, he recalled that he and his like-minded people had always opposed "national eros", against "national chauvinism", noted that "defenders of the Ukrainian nationality will NOT be nationalists."

1.5. Post-war period - until 1991

2. Types of Ukrainian nationalism

3. Nationalist organizations and movements

In the history of Ukraine there were a number of organizations that professed a nationalist ideology. These include: Ukrainian Military Organization, Group of Ukrainian National Youth, Legia of Ukrainian Nationalists, Union of Ukrainian Nationalist Youth, Union of Independent Ukrainian Youth, Ukrainian Nationalist Union, Ukrainian Inter-Party Assembly, Ukrainian National Assembly - Ukrainian People's Self-Defense, State Independence of Ukraine, Ukrainian Conservative the Republican Party, Ukrainian National Conservative Party, and nationalist parties with an ideological focus on combining a social (non-socialist) state and state capitalism: the Social-National Party of Ukraine ("SVOBODA").

3.1. OUN and its predecessors

One of the most influential and prominent Ukrainian nationalist organizations was the Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists. The OUN arose in the year by merging the Ukrainian Military Organization and several student nationalist unions - the Ukrainian National Youth Group, the Legia of Ukrainian Nationalists, the Union of Ukrainian Nationalist Youth. After the assassination of Konovalets in the city, a split occurred in the OUN, and since then the OUN ((b) - Bandera) (also used (d) - revolutionary and SD - independent statesmen) and the OUN ((m) - Melnikovites) act as separate political forces that pursue a common political goal. In addition, in the postwar period, in the environment of the OUN (b) there was a conflict between a group of representatives of the OUN (b) with Ukraine (Lebed and others). and foreign organization Bandera. As a result, another OUN appears in emigration ((c) - foreign), they are also "Mensheviks", or "Dviykari" (after the founding leaders S. Matla and L. Rebet).

At the initial stage of the existence of the OUN, a certain set of central ideological principles developed that remained unchanged for decades, but at the same time they could not be considered as a monopoly ideological product of the OUN itself in any way - in general, they coincided with the basic ideological principles of any nationalism (statehood of the nation, its sovereignty, cultural homogeneity). However, the interpretation of these principles, the methods of their implementation and interaction with other ideologies had "local specifics" and changed, however, at different rates and in different aspirations in individual branches of the movement.

Dontsovsky's slogans, framed in an attractive, vivid journalistic phrase, were perceived much easier than the predominantly cumbersome theoretical constructions of the OUN ideologues of the 1920s and 30s, none of which could boast of a literary and journalistic gift of Dontsov's level. His book "Nationalism" made a tremendous impression on precisely that part of the youth in Western Ukraine, which later became the basis of the "regional OUN". For OUN figures in the migrant environment of the 1920s-30s, D. Dontsov with his ideas did not have the status of a nationalist guru, even more, the militant destructiveness of his attitudes became the object of their criticism. True, the leadership of the OUN was kept from publishing this criticism in the press in the 1930s, considering it a tactically inexpedient step.

It is difficult to single out any specific ideological concept of the OUN Bandera faction. Long time the ideology of the OUN(b) was the integral nationalism of Dmitry Dontsov. Much of the nationalist ideology, including the concepts of dictatorship, could not attract former Soviet citizens who had gone through the hard experience of party dictatorship. So, a revision of the ideology and political program of the OUN (b) was urgently needed. The main political components of the OUN ideology were revised (at the Third Great Gathering of the OUN). There was a split into "orthodox" and "revisionists" (- gg), in addition, the slow evolution of the "Melnikov" OUN began.

For the 1940s - 1980s pp. all three streams of the OUN had an organizational design, each developed in its own way. After a long ideological stagnation, "Melnikivtsi" quite decisively changed its ideological face. The "Dviykari" have practically moved to the position of democratic nationalism, besides, they did not leave any outstanding ideological declarations. "Bandera" after the expulsion of the "revisionists" and the return to pre-war positions were longer in a state of ideological dogmatism, and their attempts to evolve towards pluralism and away from some of the principles of orthodox nationalism of the 1930s were very contradictory and not always consistent.

The process of forming the basic ideological foundations of the nationalist movement began, to a certain extent, spontaneously, already in the early 1920s, but since the mid-1920s, there has been an increasing orderliness associated with its organizational evolution. A significant step forward was the creation of nationalist magazines ("National Thought", "State Nation", "Development of the Nation"), on the pages of which, in fact, the main ideological postulates of the movement were tired. The formation of nationalist organizations (the Legia of Ukrainian Nationalists, the Union of Ukrainian Nationalist Youth, the Ukrainian National Youth Group) was accompanied by very sharp ideological discussions and the departure of those who did not agree with his obvious anti-democratic tendencies.

The resolutions of the Congress of the Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists (Vienna, January 28 - February 3) became the first systematized version of the presentation of the worldview and ideological foundations of the OUN. The ideological commission of the Congress was headed by D. Andrievsky, and, as 3. Knysh shows, more lengthy discussions took place here, and these discussions were going on precisely between the "regional workers" (S. Lenkavsky and S. Okhrimovich) and emigration representatives - D. Andrievsky and S. DEMCHIK. According to P. Mirchuk, the essence of the controversy was that "Julian Vassian Stepan Lenkavsky and Stepan Ohrimovich defended the philosophical and idealistic foundations of Ukrainian nationalism, theoretically formulated in the writings of Mykola Mikhnovsky and Dmitry Dontsov. Another concept was obscured by Dmitry Andrievsky and Dmitry Demchuk, who tried to include the ideology of Ukrainian nationalism, elements of a materialistic worldview and democratism such as uenerivshchina. The first concept won."

The nation was proclaimed the highest type of human organization as an internally organic, integral community. Ukrainian nationalism was defined as "spiritual and political movement"which arose naturally" from the inner nature of the Ukrainian Nation during its efforts to fight for the foundations and goals of creative existence. "The absolutization of the organic nature of the nation and Ukrainian nationalism, their naturalness has become one of the basic and unchanging postulates, which the OUN in all its guises has steadily maintained throughout its history.

The state was proclaimed the natural form of self-affirmation of the nation and the highest stage of its development, in this the OUN followed the principles of classical nationalism, and this element remained unchanged in its programs in the early 1990s. The future form of the state structure was determined rather vaguely and had to change up to three stages of "state building in Ukraine." At the first stage - "national liberation" or "liberation struggle" - it was said about the establishment of a national dictatorship (in what forms this dictatorship would be implemented was not mentioned). During the transitional period of building the foundations of statehood, after the victory of the national revolution, the "head of state" must "prepare the creation of higher legislative bodies on the principle of representation of all organized social strata." Finally, with the end of the "transitional period", with the stabilization of the state, a "representative body" should be formed that would appoint the head of state. The last one had to form supreme body executive branch, responsible to him and "the highest legislative body."

The too general nature of the formulations regarding such an important component of the political program as the future political system can be explained either by the fact that the authors of the program guidelines deliberately used common words, which could be interpreted in various ways, or because they themselves have not fully decided on this. Interestingly, both in the program of the OUN p., and in the program documents of the ?Melnikovtsev? In the second half of the 1940s, the thesis about the mentioned three stages of state building was repeated almost unchanged.

Finally, we should not forget that the movement at all its stages was joined by people whose worldview did not fully fall under the slogan of "integral nationalism." At the first congress, many ideas and proposals were expressed, which sometimes had a mutually contradictory character - it was impossible to ignore them, but to take them all into account would mean turning policy documents into an eclectic set of slogans. Either a compromise or an appropriate tactic was needed. In a letter (July 16) to Makar Kushnir (Bogush), Vladimir Marganets, a member of the OUN Wire and editor of the journal Development of the Nation, wrote: "The trouble is that the Congress has not spoken more clearly about the future state structure Ukraine. Under that review, we at the Congress followed a rather Machiavellian line: if all the devices were accepted into our program, then they would not be contacted for life and death in any way.

Thus, the formation of the ideological platform of the OUN (all three currents) took place under the influence of various thinkers and theorists, in the process of lengthy discussions, conflicts and splits. This process dragged on for several decades. Only one thing can be stated with certainty: the ideology of the OUN has gone far from the narrow-party ideology of the Ukrainian parties of the first half of the 19th century, for a long time determining the development of right-wing radical thought not only in Ukraine but also far beyond its borders.

4. Nationalism in independent Ukraine

4.1. 1991-1994

Process national revival- years in the Ukrainian SSR was marked by the emergence of new political parties and movements alternative to the CPU, mainly of the national democratic direction: "People's Movement for Perestroika", the Ukrainian Republican Party and others. However, in a short time, a significant part of the most active citizens, mostly young people, became disillusioned with the latest national democratic trends, throwing them political indecision and excessive moderation in their views. So on August 19, members of the youth wing of the Ukrainian Helsinki Group on Makovka Mountain proclaimed the creation of the Union of Independent Ukrainian Youth. Snumivtsi openly manifested the secession of Ukraine from the USSR as the goal of their activities, the education of young people in the spirit of patriotism, using the examples of the national liberation struggle of the OUN and UPA, etc. Although the SNUM was an illegal organization and operated under conditions of ideological taboos and prohibitions, however, she quickly found fans all over Ukraine. In less than a year from the date of its formation, the SNUM has united in its ranks about a thousand nationalistically minded young people from all regions of Ukraine. In May of the year, the total number of regional SNUM organizations increases to 18. There was a SNUM cell in Przemysl, Poland.

The main means of the Union's activity was campaigning and educational work, organizing rallies, strikes, hunger strikes and pickets. At their first illegal rallies in Kyiv and Lvov, Snumivtsi raised money to print their manifestos and periodicals (SNUM printed its newspapers and leaflets in Lithuania and illegally imported them into the Ukrainian SSR), which made it possible to spread their ideas among the masses. Members of the union arranged theatrical performances with the burning of Komsomol tickets in Kyiv, Lvov, Ternopil, Rivne, Dubno. The Snumivtsi organized a boycott of the spring conscription in the Soviet Army. With this mission, pickets and hunger strikes were arranged at the military registration and enlistment offices. Not a single anti-Soviet rally in the Ukrainian SSR in the period - 2000 took place without the participation of SNUM. In the spring, SNUM receives Active participation in parliamentary elections. Igor Derkach becomes a deputy from SNUM. In the city, the organization is more and more clearly polarized into two camps: radical (formed around A. Vitovich and D. Korchinsky) and democratic. The democratic wing of the SNUM was reformed into the Union of Ukrainian Youth, which took as a model the diaspora organization SUM, which was revived in Germany in the 40s of the twentieth century. SUM was radical organization and set the goal of educating young people on idealistic principles in the spirit of Christianity and patriotism.

Fighters UNA-UNSO 1997

The fate of the radical SNUM faction was different. It is formalized (- 4 November) into a new organizational body: the Ukrainian Nationalist Union. The same year, the UNS, having rallied around itself radical members of national democratic parties and organizations, forms the Ukrainian inter-party Assembly, which was later reformed into the Ukrainian National Assembly. In the year, as a reaction to the putsch in the USSR, the first units of the Ukrainian People's Self-Defense were formed to call on the UNA, which set as their goal the collection of weapons and the formation of paramilitary units with the aim of armed counteraction to the State Emergency Committee. Although the UNSO was not formally a structural part of the UNA, it acted as a paramilitary wing of the party. With the spread of right-wing radical ideas in the West of Ukraine and in Kyiv, the ranks of the UNSO are rapidly replenishing. The UNSO participates in armed conflicts: in Transnistria (1992) on the side of the Transnistrian separatists, in the Georgian-Abkhaz conflict (1993) on the side of Georgia, in Nagorno-Karabakh, in Kosovo on the side of Serbia.

However, tactical and personal differences led to a confrontation between the Melnikovites and the Banderaites. The OUN (revolutionary), leaving the unregistered and legalized structure of the OUN, founded a legal party superstructure that operated in accordance with the current legislation of Ukraine - the Congress of Ukrainian Nationalists. It was registered by the Ministry of Justice of Ukraine on January 26 of the year. KUHN as a whole stands on right-wing conservative positions and focuses on those who recognize the ideology of Ukrainian nationalism. In addition, at the initiative of the OUN (p), a number of public organizations, such as.

Ukrainian nationalism- political nationalist ideology, as well as a socio-political movement that aims to create and develop a Ukrainian independent nation state and/or the protection of national identity. Nationalism requires, first of all, national self-consciousness, awareness of the national community of a group of people.

19th century

The foundation of the theory of "Ukrainian nationalism" was laid in the "Book of the Ukrainian people", written, in particular, by members of the first political organization in the Russian Empire "Cyril and Methodius Brotherhood" - historian Nikolai Kostomarov and poet Taras Shevchenko. Nikolai Kostomarov put forward the thesis of two Russian nationalities, proving the existence of a separate "South Russian" nationality.

In 1847 a number of members of the society were arrested and deported.

The activity of the organization was resumed in the 1850-1860s. At the same time, there was a split between supporters of the Ukrainian proper and the Little Russian (opposing secession) orientation. This opposition intensified after the Valuev and Emsky decrees, which sharply limited the use of the Ukrainian language in education and science. However, even among the supporters of "Ukrainianism" until the end of the 19th century, very few were in favor of the immediate separation of Ukraine from the Russian Empire. In Galicia, a similar conflict was between the “Russophiles”, who advocated rapprochement with the Russian Empire, and the “Narodovtsy”. At the same time, in turn, there was also rejection between the Eastern "Ukrainophiles" and the Galician "Narodovtsy".

Late 19th - early 20th century

The very term "nationalism" appears in Ukrainian journalism around the 1880s-1890s. At first, this term was not used to denote a specific political doctrine, but provided for a fairly wide range of socio-political ideas and preferences of the Ukrainian people. For example, B. Grinchenko in "Letters from Ukraine Prydniprovska" distinguishes among Ukrainian figures "formal nationalists", "showing commitment to everything Ukrainian: from the Ukrainian language, to Ukrainian literature, and even to Ukrainian clothes."

On the turn of XIX-XX centuries, the situation has changed: the division of the Ukrainian national movement into separate competing currents and the struggle between them lead to the ideologization and politicization of the concept of "nationalism".

Nikolai Mikhnovsky

Ukrainian integral nationalism

Dmitry Dontsov

One of the active opponents of "bourgeois nationalism" from the positions of socialism at the beginning of the 20th century was a publicist who published under the pseudonym "Dm. Zakopanets" - in the future, the author of the famous manifesto of radical Ukrainian nationalism Dmitry Dontsov. By the First World War, Dmitry Dontsov changes his political preferences and in 1926 publishes the work "Nationalism", in which, based on the views of social Darwinism, he argues that a special layer should be at the head of the nation " the best people”, whose task is to use “creative violence” against the bulk of the people, and the enmity of nations among themselves is natural and should eventually lead to the victory of “strong” nations over the “weak”. Dontsov's views formed the basis of the ideology of the OUN

OUN and UPA

In the 1920s, a number of organizations appeared that professed a radical nationalist ideology. These included: Ukrainian Military Organization (UVO), Group of Ukrainian National Youth, League of Ukrainian Nationalists (with the Union of Ukrainian Fascists included in it), Union of Ukrainian Nationalist Youth.

In 1929, these organizations united into the Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists (OUN) at the First Congress (Gathering) of Ukrainian Nationalists. (ukr.), held in Vienna on January 27 - February 3, 1929.

The first head of the OUN in 1929 was Yevgeny Konovalets, head of the UVO. After his assassination (1938), at the beginning of World War II, the OUN split into two factions: the OUN (r), the so-called "revolutionary OUN", which is better known as the "Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists (Bandera Movement)" (OUN (b) ) named after its leader Stepan Bandera, and a group of supporters of Andrei Melnik, known as the OUN (m).

However, according to the testimony presented in a series of documents of the People's Commissariat of Internal Affairs (NKVD) of the USSR for 1942-1945, which were declassified by the Russian Foreign Ministry in 2008 and 2014, during this period of the Great Patriotic War, members of the OUN and UPA actively cooperated with Nazi invaders, and also participated in mass executions of civilians. The victims of the nationalists were people of various nationalities.

At the end of World War II in Europe, Bandera and Melnik ended up in the western zone of occupation and, as a result, in the sphere of interests of the special services Western countries. The OUN(b) showed particular activity, as before. With the official start of the Cold War in 1947, their activity in the emigrant environment, with the support of the intelligence services of the United States and Great Britain, increased, while activity in the territory of the Ukrainian SSR and Poland was gradually suppressed by the efforts of the security services of the USSR and Poland. Attempts by the emigrant leadership of the OUN to establish contact with the underground failed - for example, out of 19 liaisons dropped in 1952, 18 ended up in the USSR Ministry of State Security.

At the same time, since 1946, an internal split was brewing in the OUN (b) itself between the "orthodox" led by Bandera and the "reformists" represented by Zinovy Matla (ukr.) and Lev Rebet, which actually took shape in 1956. Then a third faction emerged from the OUN(b), headed by Zinoviy Matla and Lev Rebet, and called the "Foreign OUN", or OUN(z) (ukr.)(also because of the number of leaders, it is called "dvіykarі" (from "ukr. dvіyka" - "deuce")). At the same time, the OUN(m) established contacts with representatives of the UNR in exile and gradually moved away from radical nationalist activities, becoming a right-wing conservative party. The OUN(b) evolved weakly, actually remaining on the positions of the early 1930s. Despite this, she dominated the nationalist émigré environment, especially in the United States and Canada, becoming especially in demand during the peak of the Cold War in the first half of the 1980s.

By the end of the 1980s, both movements semi-legally returned to the Ukrainian SSR. The legalization of both OUN took place in the early 1990s, and the OUN (b) was legalized in the form of the political party "Congress of Ukrainian Nationalists" (KUN), and the OUN (m) - in the form of the socio-political movement of the same name.

Ukrainian National Communism

In 1917-1920 in communist movement a direction arose, the supporters of which believed that the construction of a communist economy would lead to the destruction of both social and national oppression, and also that communism should not be unified according to the Russian model, but adapted to specific national conditions. In 1919, Vasily Shakhrai also wrote the work “To the Current Moment. What is happening in Ukraine and with Ukraine?” theoretically formalized these ideas into the doctrine of Ukrainian national communism.

Borotbists and ukapists

Ukrainian social nationalism

A variation of German National Socialism adapted to the Ukrainian system, culture and traditions. It is the highest radical degree of nationalism.

Ukrainian civic nationalism

Nationalism during the years of Ukraine's independence

The process of national revival of 1989-1991 in the USSR was marked by the emergence of new political parties and movements alternative to the CPU, mainly of the national democratic direction: "People's Movement of Ukraine for Perestroika", the Ukrainian Republican Party and others. However, in a short time, a significant part of the most active citizens, mostly young people, became disillusioned with the latest national democratic trends, accusing them of political indecision and excessive moderation in their views. So, on August 19, 1989, members of the youth wing of the Ukrainian Helsinki Group on Mount Makovka proclaimed the creation of the Union of Independent Ukrainian Youth. Snumovites openly manifested the secession of Ukraine from the USSR as the goal of their activities; education of youth in the spirit of patriotism on the examples of the national liberation struggle of the OUN and UPA, etc. Although the SNUM was an illegal organization and operated under conditions of ideological taboos and prohibitions, it quickly found supporters throughout Ukraine. In less than a year from the date of its formation, the SNUM has united in its ranks about a thousand nationalistically minded young people from all regions of Ukraine. In May 1990, the total number of regional SNUM organizations increased to 18. There was a SNUM cell in Przemysl, Poland.

Symbols

Symbols of Ukrainian nationalist organizations.

Notes

N. I. Kostomarov. Two Russian peoples "Osnova". - St. Petersburg, 1861. - No. 3. - P. 33 // litopys.org.ua
A. I. Miller. Dualism of identities in Ukraine. Journal "Domestic Notes" (Issue No. 1 (34), 2007) // strana-oz.ru
Ten Commandments UNP - Mykola-Mikhnovsky
History of Ukraine. Grade 10: Lesson development By O. V. Gisem, O. O. Martinyuk
Ukrainians should not have massacred civilians: an interview with historian John-Paul Khimki
Polischuk V.V. Legal and political assessment of the OUN and UPA // Political expertise: POLITEKS. - 2006. - V. 2, No. 3. - S. 25-63.
, TO NUTRITION ABOUT THE IDEOLOGY OF THE ORGANIZATION OF UKRAINIAN NATIONALISTS (OUN). ANALYTICAL REVIEW.
The website of the Russian Ministry of Defense published unique archival documents on the activities of Ukrainian nationalists during the Great Patriotic War. Press Service and Information Department // function.mil.ru (April 3, 2014)
The "Secret" stamp has been removed. "Activities of Ukrainian nationalist organizations during the Great Patriotic War" (originals of historical documents). Official website of the Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation // mil.ru (April 3, 2014)
The Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation published evidence of cooperation between the OUN-UPA and the Nazis during the Second World War. Russian News Agency "TASS" // tass.ru (March 5, 2014)

Literature

Links

Liu Shaoqi. "Internationalism and nationalism". V. The Progressive Character of Bourgeois Nationalism in Given Historical Conditions and the Marxist-Leninist Attitude Toward Such Nationalism. // marxists.org
By Tom Lewis. Marxism and Nationalism. . "International Socialist Review", Issue No. 13, August-September 2000. // isreview.org



Asia

Another and much more radical direction of nationalism was Galician. Actually, it is precisely this that now prevails in modern Ukraine. The fact is that when they say that in Ukraine there is a split into east and west, not everyone fully understands what is at stake and what event happened in 1939. And then there was an event even more serious than the unification of the FRG and the GDR. Then, according to the terms of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, Galicia, which was part of Poland, was annexed to the Ukrainian SSR. Galicia was traditionally inhabited by Ukrainians, but at the same time they never lived on the territory of the Russian Empire, except for the mythical times of Yaroslav the Wise, when there were still no people really. That is, the Ukrainians, who traditionally lived in the Republic of Ingushetia, were joined by a completely special tribe of fighting Galicians, propagandized back in Austria-Hungary. In addition, unlike the traditionally Orthodox Ukrainians, all Galicians were Uniates-Greek Catholics, which is a separate story in itself. And if the Germans lived in a divided form for 45 years, then&npbsp; in this case, peoples united not only with different history, but even by faith, since the Uniates came under the authority of the Pope back in 1596, retaining only the Byzantine rite.

On the eve of World War I, Galicia was part of Austria-Hungary. At the same time, there was a broad Russophile movement in Galicia. Of course, it was partly supported by funding from Russia. The Austrians also worked on the local population in their own interests. For example, when the war began, among the Ukrainians of Galicia for the war with Russia, 7 thousand “usus” were recruited without any problems - Ukrainian Sich Riflemen, commanded by Archduke Wilhelm Franz of Habsburg-Lorraine, known as Vasyl Vyshyvany.

That awkward moment when jokes about the Austrian General Staff are not jokes.

As for the Russophiles, after the start of the First World War, they were all sent to the Talerhof and Terezin concentration camps, where they were either executed or died. Only a minority managed to survive. Incidentally, Tyagnibok's great-grandfather was a prosecution witness at one of these trials.

Actually, Galician nationalism stood on two things: the Plast scout organization, where military ukrov were molded from small ukryats, and Greek Catholic priests, who were ultra-nationalist and inspired similar thoughts in the flock. A huge number of prominent people in the Ukrainian nationalist movement were the children of Uniate priests.

Soldiers of "Plast"

As a result of the First World War, Galicia was ceded to Poland, which drove Ukrainian nationalists into a frenzy. If in Austria-Hungary they lived relatively well, albeit without national autonomy, then the Poles turned out to be terrible chauvinists. Immediately after the war, the "Ukrainian military organization" was created. She became the last link in the chain: "dad - a Greek Catholic priest" - childhood in "Plast" - "service in the Austro-Hungarian army" - "UVO". One of its main creators was the former ensign of the Austro-Hungarian army Yevgeny Konovalets - half Rusyn, half Pole. Konovalets, just before the October Revolution, fled from Russian captivity to Kyiv, where he led a detachment of Sich Riflemen guarding the Central Rada. After the Germans appointed Skoropadsky, the archers were disbanded.

Founding Congress of the OUN. Konovalets - in the center in the bottom row.

The main goals of the UVO were sabotage, sabotage, terrorist attacks, murders and robberies in Poland. Konovalets was friends with a judge named Shukhevych and rented a room from him for a year, spending a lot of time in conversations with his 14-year-old son Roman Shukhevych, who, after talking with Konovalets, got excited about the idea of Ukrainian nationalism and first joined Plast, and then in the UVO, where he began to personally participate both in sabotage actions and in murders. By the way, Konovalets established old ties with the Germans, who decided to use radical ukroboys against the Poles, and with pleasure prepared saboteurs from the UVO.

In addition to the UVO, there were several other organizations of Ukrainian nationalists, mostly youth. However, they did not play such a role. In 1929, on the basis of the UVO, all nationalist organizations were united into the Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists (OUN).

Dmitry Dontsov, tamer of the Mongolokatsapov.

The main ideologist of the OUN, who put into readable letters the idea of \u200b\u200bfighting the Jewish Muscovites that was in the air, was Dmitry Dontsov, the only Muscovite among the Galicians. He was born on the territory of the Russian Empire and his origin was the most carnival, up to the Italians in the family. He studied in St. Petersburg and began as a Marxist. However, later he left for Galicia and his "eyes were opened". He hated the Marxists for their internationalism and became an ardent Ukrainian chauvinist. After the outbreak of the First World War, Dontsov realized what was happening, and got a good job in the Austro-Hungarian Ministry of Truth. He headed the Union for the Liberation of Ukrainians. main goal organization was the separation of the territory of Little Russia from Russia and the creation of an independent Ukrainian state under the wise protectorate of Austria-Hungary. To this end, agitators traveled to prisoner-of-war camps and campaigned among the Little Russians. He even managed to be the Minister of Telegraphs under Skoropadsky, but in the 20s he moved away from politics and focused on fantasies, on which the young "plastunites" grew up. Summary Dontsov's ideas do not shine with originality: "Ukrainians are the chosen race, Germans are good, Muscovites and Psheks are non-humans."

It was at this time that a new conscription to the OUN took place and the ultra-radical Galician youth, who had been growing up under the Poles for a decade, replaced the Sich Riflemen. Around the same time, its future leaders appeared in the OUN: Bandera, Stetsko and Shukhevych, although the latter had already managed to actively participate in the actions of the old UVO. There were quite remarkable characters among this wave. So, Lev Rebet was a Jew, but this is a small touch.

The most inexplicable OUN activist was Richard Yary, who had such a murky biography that researchers are still at a loss: who is this? Literally, they still cannot establish who he was by origin and what he did in childhood. There are versions that Yariy is a Hungarian Jew, a Sudeten German, half Czech, half Jew, an Austrian aristocrat. He himself presented himself as the son of a Cossack. It is noteworthy that when the Germans checked him for possible cooperation, it turned out that in the place where he was born, no one remembers any Yarykh family at all. It is also not exactly established what he did before the First World War. There is a version that before the revolution his name was Richard von Jari and he was an Austrian intelligence officer. With the beginning of the revolutionary events, he ended up in the Galician army of the ZUNR, after the revolution he speculated in horses, married a Jewess, left for Germany, bought a villa there and joined the ranks of Ukrainian nationalists. And he didn’t just join, but immediately headed the organization’s intelligence (not bad for a horse speculator), and then became the OUN representative to the NSDAP (!).

Richard Yary, either a patriot of Ukraine, or looking from adult powers.

As for the intelligence services, versions are expressed as assumptions that Yariy worked for German, British, Soviet and Polish intelligence. Versions are also expressed that it was he who organized the split in the OUN in 1940. He is also one of the creators of the Roland battalion, which became one of two Ukrainian national formations within the Wehrmacht, created before the war. In the fall of 1941, he was sent to a concentration camp along with other Ukrainian nationalist leaders. Perhaps for the sake of appearances, since they released Yary much earlier than the rest, almost a year later, while the rest were imprisoned until 1944. After the war, he lived in Vienna, in the Soviet occupation zone, and the Soviets knew very well who Yary was, but did not make any attempts to arrest him . Moreover, there is even evidence that Yariy once entered the Soviet occupation administration and ordered the release of a Ukrainian they had detained with his wife. In general, a typical comrade Artem.

The most famous character of this wave of nationalists is, of course, Stepan Bandera. I must say that Bandera is such a Ukrainian Mandela, who spent the entire action in prison and was rather a living symbol of the movement. He was born into the family of a Greek Catholic priest who adhered to ultranationalist views and raised children in the appropriate spirit. Bandera's main childhood dream was to join Plast, and he finally achieved his goal. Bandera from childhood was distinguished by mental problems, in particular, he suffered from sadomasochism. He regularly engaged in self-mutilation, drove needles under his nails, walked naked in the cold, strangled cats. Later, when the stage of turning Bandera into a mythological hero was already beginning, the oddities of the psyche were explained in a brilliant way: he simply prepared for torture from childhood. By the way, the weirdo achieved with his “preparation for torture” only that he earned severe rheumatism at a young age.

Initially, Bandera in the OUN served as a propagandist and distributor of illegal publications. However, soon Gabrusevich, also a Galician and the son of a Uniate priest, drew attention to him, and appointed him responsible for propaganda in the region, and a year later he sent him to German instructors in an intelligence school (Konovalets established contacts with them). After undergoing special training, Bandera became a regional conductor, that is, the head of the regional branch. In time, this coincided with the famine in the Ukrainian SSR, the OUN even held several protests, and later tried to kill the Soviet ambassador, but could not do this, limiting themselves to killing the secretary from the embassy. However, the main enemies of the OUN remained the Poles, hatred for which simply rolled over.

In 1934, the OUN killed the Minister of the Interior of Poland, Peratsky, in response, the Poles seized a number of nationalists known to them and staged a trial against them. It is believed that Bandera did not participate in the murder itself, but was involved in the development of his plan. The same thing was presented to him in court. At 99%, everyone was sure that the defendants would be hanged, especially since they did not even think of unlocking it, but the hanging was suddenly replaced with a life sentence. Bandera sat in prison until September 1939, when the prison administration fled in fear of the German advance. By that time, Soviet troops had captured Western Ukraine and turned into the main enemies of the OUN, who were now almost not interested in the Poles. Konovalets had already been killed by Sudoplatov, his actual successor was not Bandera, but Andrey Melnik, who remained at large.

Celestial Sheptytsky.

Melnik was also from the Galicians, at one time he served in a detachment of Sich Riflemen. He had close ties with the Germans, as well as with the Uniate celestial - Metropolitan Sheptytsky. Sheptytsky came from an aristocratic family and had extensive connections in the old Austria-Hungary with the leadership of the state. He spoke Hebrew fluently, at one time "on the instructions of the party" organized Uniate communities in the Russian Empire. After the arrival of the Bolsheviks in Western Ukraine, he wrote letters to Stalin in which he scolded him for godlessness, but Stalin did not dare to lay a finger on the impudent priest. During the German occupation, Sheptytsky sent greeting letters to Hitler and blessed Bandera to fight the Muscovites, and when the Germans began to persecute the Jews, he began to write angry letters with curses to Himmler and the Pope. And why would the Germans not wipe the presumptuous priest into powder? So after all, too, were afraid to touch. Apparently, they were also afraid of his full beard. At the beginning of 1944, Sheptytsky ordered Uniate priests to melt bells into cannons for Great Germany, and already in the middle of the year he sent congratulatory telegrams to Great Stalin, praising him for his tolerance for religion and calling communism a charitable doctrine, while cursing the Banderaites. Here they would have slapped Hitler's accomplice to Stalin, well, in extreme cases, put him on trial, but no, they were afraid to touch him again.

Comrade Melnik.

In general, Melnik had serious friends, however, Bandera also gained fame during his imprisonment in a Polish prison. Melnik insisted on close cooperation with Germany, Bandera insisted on relying on his own forces. The matter ended, just like the Bolsheviks, with a split into the OUN (b) and OUN (m). B - Bandera, and M - Melnikov. Bandera initially had a serious advantage, and by 1943 the Melnikovites were a marginal minority.

A week after the German attack on the USSR, the OUN proclaimed the creation of an independent Ukrainian state. Yaroslav Stetsko, a Galician and the son of a priest, was appointed head of the virtual state. The Germans were enraged by such a chutzpa and called all the leaders of the nationalists to "negotiations", in which they were all arrested and thrown into concentration camps. Of the prominent figures, only Shukhevych remained at large, who even before the war managed to become a German officer.

Roman Shukhevych.

In German concentration camps, two brothers of Bandera died, who were beaten to death by the Poles. At the end of 1944, the Germans released all the nationalists, hoping for their help. Indeed, this year there was an activation of the UPA, which is noticeable in the changed attitude from the side Soviet army, which included the UPA among its "official enemies". Whereas until 1944, the partisans who participated in clashes with the UPA detachments, in the event of the capture of the rebels, most often shot the commanders, and all the rest were allowed to go home, betraying them by a crack.

However, after being imprisoned in the concentration camp, Bandera practically retired and missed the moment, he never returned to the territory of Western Ukraine, and Shukhevych became the leader of the OUN underground and parts of the UPA, partisan until 1950, until he was shot dead during the storming of his shelter.

After the end of the war, the Americans and the Communists launched a hunt for Bandera, so he went to cooperate with British intelligence, which, however, did not bring serious results. For some time he lived in Munich and stretched right up to 1959, until they finally got close to him. The murder was carried out by Bohdan Stashinsky, who, according to legend, was recruited by the KGB after he was detained for traveling without a ticket. In 1957 he killed Lev Rebet, and in 1959 - Bandera. At the same time, both times he left the scene of the crime and was not caught, but in 1961 he suddenly fled from the GDR to the FRG and told the German authorities that he had committed the murder. He served 8 years and disappeared in an unknown direction, there is a version that he is still alive and lives in South Africa under an assumed name.

Bogdan Stashinsky, best friend of Ukrainian nationalists.

After the death of Shukhevych, Vasily Kuk became the head of the UPA, who was soon arrested, but did not stay long, after which he repented, was released and renounced the movement, in addition, writing letters to foreign OUN members to recognize Soviet power. After that, he lived quietly in the USSR and died only in 2007.

The OUN, starting from the 50s, was actually mothballed and existed only on paper in exile. However, by the end of the 80s, the winds of change began to blow and the organization came out of hibernation, first in Canada and the United States, and after the fall of the USSR it became legal in Ukraine.

From this small but instructive story, we can conclude that the generic feature of Ukrainian nationalism is its connection with religious fanatics from the local Greek Catholic Church. What this means in terms of the claims of the Galicians to the whole of Ukraine (and in general the validity of such claims), let everyone think out on their own.

Any national community, having formed a state, always passes through the national stage and either stops at this stage or develops further.
The uniqueness of Ukraine lies in the fact that it has not been able to truly survive the stage of a nation state, and today Ukraine has all the conditions for the transition to a new civilizational level. But…
You know, as some people wrote in their autobiographies: “I didn’t have a childhood” or “I never got married.” And these people often worry about such gaps, even trying to "live" them, which does not always look natural. Therefore, it was not in vain that I put in the title - “for normal people”, i.e. for people who understand what it is when, for example, there was no childhood. Instead of stubbornly preaching about the ancient ukrov, from which everything originated: from dinosaurs to Barack Obama. Or about the ancient Aryan Russians, from whom everything also descended: from dinosaurs to Vladimir Putin.
This article is an abstract of the conversation between the host of the program "The Price of the Revolution" Mikhail Sokolov and Dr. historical sciences Alexey Miller, which took place on the radio "Echo of Moscow" in the summer of 2014, with some of my comments.
.
Today's supporters of the struggle for "Novorossia" often repeat that there is no Ukraine, but there is "Novorossia", "Little Russia", "Galicia", and there are no Ukrainians either, but there is a branch of the big Russian people, the Little Russians. Let's try to figure out what Ukraine is, where Ukrainian nationalism came from and how it manifested itself.

Pereyaslav Rada

First, you should go into the depths of history: the Pereyaslav Rada and the agreement with Muscovy. The Hetman's territory that arose under Bogdan Khmelnitsky, when she signed an agreement with the Muscovite kingdom - what was it? An interstate alliance or some form of vassalage?
Certainly a form of vassalage. Because it still did not reach the state, it was very important for Khmelnitsky to lean against someone. Because they arose at the intersection of the influences of fairly large three forces: the Commonwealth, Ottoman Empire and Muscovy. And it was physically impossible to remain independent from anyone just like that.
By the way, when Khmelnitsky went over to the side of Moscow, the balance of power in this region changed dramatically. A few years before that, there was the Smolensk War. Muscovy tried with all its might to recapture Smolensk and nothing happened. And here, literally after 20 years, the border of the Russian kingdom advanced to the Dnieper.
On the other hand, literally after this decision, the so-called "Ruin" appeared - Hetman Vygodsky prepared a world in which Ukraine would be an independent principality as part of the Commonwealth. The “ruin” took place on the right bank, and the left bank just partly fueled its loyalty to Moscow by seeing what was happening on the right.
The fact is that the Cossack foreman, the officer stratum, what were they dissatisfied with in the Commonwealth? The fact that they were not given gentry (noble) status. This is another reason for the Khmelnytsky uprising - in addition to the religious conflict.

Mazepa

He went against the centralization policy of Peter, against the growing authoritarianism, Russian troops slaughtered 6,000 of the town of Baturino, defeated the Zaporizhzhya Sich, the hetman fled, and the whole 18th century continued such humiliation of the autonomy of Ukraine and its destruction, in the end.
And if Mazepa endured? I would continue spiritual dialogues with Peter, slowly intrigue. Wouldn't that be the fate of Ukraine? Mazepa didn't really have much choice.
Peter creates a regular army. And, accordingly, the significance of the Cossack regiments drops significantly. Plus this war with Sweden. Mazepa defected to Karl, trying to maintain a greater degree of autonomy and independence. Carl is the perfect patron - he's far away. But, it didn't work out.
To do this, you need to review the entire history of this period - if Charles had won? He would put his Polish king. And if he put his own king, then why does he need Mazepa? That is, it is not at all necessary that the victory of Charles near Poltava is the independence of "Ukraine", as the small territory around Kyiv was then called. This was hardly the history of Ukraine in the modern sense.

Nobility instead of Ukrainians

That Ukraine - could it maintain a sufficiently high level of autonomy within the Russian Empire? Theoretically yes. But it is important to understand that its elites, this autonomy, quite deliberately surrendered for estate benefits, which they did not receive from the Commonwealth at one time. In Russia they received the nobility. And just when Catherine the Great abolishes the hetmanate, her autonomy - this is the 80s. 18th century. She opens the gate wide enough for them to enter the nobility.
And here we must remember that Russian nobility There were very few and it was not so easy to get there. And in principle, papers were needed for this - all sorts of generic books. But the Cossacks did not have anything like that. And so the authorities quite deliberately turned a blind eye to the fact that a significant part of these people forged the necessary papers - there more than 20 thousand people entered the Russian nobility.
There is a very important clarification to be made here. In the 18th century, class society dominated Europe. Now it may seem strange, but the Russian aristocrat was closer and "nearer" to any European aristocrat than to "his own" Russian peasant. And in this sense, the Russian aristocrat (like any European) always put his class position above the national one.
Therefore, the behavior of the Ukrainian nobility cannot be called national betrayal. If the Russians found themselves in such a situation, they did exactly the same. Such class demarcation strongly backfired on Russia during the Civil War. The absence of a real non-class national consciousness helped the Bolsheviks to play on the emotional incandescence of class consciousness. And in the end, win.
By the way, the rejection of Ukrainianism was theoretically formalized long before Catherine the Great. In 1674, in Kiev-Pechersk monastery, in Kyiv it is written "Synopsis". This is a very important book, these are commented excerpts from the annals - in fact, the history that the elites know. This story directly states that there is such a single Slovene-Russian people, of which the Little Russians are a part and of which the Great Russians are a part.
And although this is not already an absolutely established and dominant concept, but, nevertheless, it was invented there, and it was invented based on their own interests: if you join somewhere, then you need to be not some kind of marginal renegade, but an integral part of the centre.

The first Ukrainian nationalist

In the 19th century, Ukrainian nationalism developed in a natural way - through an attempt at autonomy of the language and the established regional culture. Ukrainian language - what is its status in the Russian Empire at the beginning of the 19th century? Are there educational institutions, or is it a purely folk dialect, a dialect, as some then thought?
At the beginning of the 19th century there were no Ukrainian educational institutions, and there were few Russians, especially for the people. Everything seriously aggravated after the abolition of serfdom. Because then the question of educating the peasantry comes to the fore, and then there are already such groups of Ukrainian activists who would like the schools to work in Ukrainian. To do this, they print primers, and so on. But it wasn't allowed!
Therefore, Taras Shevchenko should be considered the real founding father of Ukrainian literature. Moreover, against the background of the moderation of the people who were in Shevchenko's circle, who did not demand anything special, except for cultural autonomy, Shevchenko was a sort of lonely radical revolutionary and the first Ukrainian nationalist.
Here you need to understand that Shevchenko was a poet, and the poet gets carried away, excited when he writes poetry and does not really think about how it could end. As a result, he was punished more severely than everyone else, but not for Ukrainianness, but for poems that were offensive to the tsar and the tsarina. What was largely and ingratitude because with the help of the court he was redeemed from serfdom.
Yes, Shevchenko gives this power, emotion, and then he will become very important, because he will be used by Ukrainian nationalists of subsequent eras - the book that defines their consciousness is Kobzar.
But it is also important that when Shevchenko dreamed of independence, these were dreams. Then they would not even be able to draw a map of Ukraine.

Ukrainians internal and external: from the middle of the 19th century to the First World War

The first ethnographic map of Ukraine, which the Ukrainians make for themselves, moreover, at the expense of the Russian Imperial Geographical Society, was created in the 60s–70s. 19th century. This is done by Pavel Chubinsky, who will later write the Ukrainian anthem.
During this period, there is a competition between two ideas: gradually growing Ukrainians and Little Russians, that is, branches of the common Russian people. And while the number of adherents of Ukrainian nationalism is in the tens, well, maybe hundreds.
A completely conscious Ukrainian nationalist Yevgeny Chykalenko tells how these Ukrainian nationalists went in 1903 to the opening of a monument to Kotlyarevsky. They traveled in two carriages of the same train to Poltava. And in his diary, Chykalenko writes: “Imagine that the train derails and what remains of Ukrainian nationalism?”
But Little Russian - this is also far from easy. Because you can be a Little Russian and a conscious Russian nationalist - there were such people. And you can be a Little Russian in the sense that we generally do not care about all this nationalism, and not think about it.
At the same time, the ban for popularization Ukrainian language (in the sense of publishing in Ukrainian) in the Russian Empire - put Galicia in an advantageous position, where all languages were considered equal. The Poles tried to Polonize them there, but they did not succeed very well, because Vienna did not allow them to do this. As a result, the intelligentsia appears there. But so far it is not Ukrainian yet.
Well, absolutely little known fact: 1893 - the first Ukrainian printed organ - the Svoboda newspaper - began to be published in Jersey City. Given the limited ideas of Ukrainianism, this is quite natural.
The 20th century begins. In the Russian Empire - the revolution of 1905. There are already Ukrainian parties: the revolutionary Ukrainian party of Petliura and Vinnichenko, Ukrainian Marxists, Ukrainian Socialist-Revolutionaries - what are they striving for?
They want a certain independence and a certain federation, which they strive for - firstly, in order to use the opportunities that the 1905 revolution gave.
Which? First of all, the press. The ban on the Ukrainian language has been lifted, the Ukrainian press, the Rada newspaper, appears. But she has 2-3 thousand subscribers - she has to pay extra for this newspaper all the time. While Shulgin has a "Kievite" with a subscription of 20-30 thousand - by the way, Russian and nationalist.
Next is Duma. Ukrainian nationalists participate in the elections without much success. Because the elections in Ukraine of that period were won mainly by Russian nationalists. Even in Volhynia - Shulgin and his friends, just the Black Hundreds, or hard right. At the same time, Kyiv has the largest, most powerful organization, the Kyiv Club of Russian Nationalists, and it does not from the Great Russians, and from the Little Russians, and they win the elections to the City Duma.
And when, in 1913, a monument was erected to Stolypin in front of the Kiev Opera House, Stolypin's quote was engraved on the monument: "I hope, I believe that the dawn of the Russian national revival, blazing in southern Russia, will embrace the whole country." That is, he speaks of Ukraine as the south of Russia, where these nationalists are winning and that this trend will spread throughout the country, because Moscow and the Great Russian provinces send some socialists and liberals to the Duma.
But back to Galicia. Russian imperialists, nationalists convinced the country that Ukrainianism was an Austrian intrigue, almost not conspiratorial nest in Lvov. And how things really were, why Lviv became the center of Ukrainian culture, and politics too. Because from a certain moment, Vienna quite consciously supports the Ukrainian movement in Galicia. They discovered that the Ruthenian milieu - the official name for this population was "Rusyns" in Galicia - is very strongly infected with a pro-Russian, pro-Moscow mood. There was such a shocking episode when one parish of the Greek Catholic Church converted to Orthodoxy - this is 1881. The year that Germany made an alliance with Austria-Hungary against Russia.
And then the first trial of treason against the Russophiles takes place in Lvov. That is, some were imprisoned, some were intimidated, and the entire hierarchy of this Uniate church was cleansed and Sheptytsky, who came from a Polish aristocratic family, was put in charge of this church. Which will then become one of the patrons of the Ukrainian movement. Ratio Russophile Ukrainians fluctuates all the time in Galicia, but the Ukrainians are getting stronger.

World War I

And then the war comes, and the first concentration camps in Europe are camps created by the Austrians for the Russophiles. Several tens of thousands of people were sitting there, 3 thousand of them were executed.
But this should not provoke controversy on the topic: natural or unnatural this thing is a Ukrainian idea. Because all national ideas, one way or another, received the support of those empires that seemed to benefit from it.
Therefore, the Ukrainians received support during the war and from Austria-Hungary and from Germany. Germany has created five special camps for Ukrainian prisoners of war. The most important thing was not that they were better fed, but that they were isolated from the rest and Ukrainian nationalist organizations were sent to work there.
There was such a “Union for the Liberation of Ukraine. That is, these are people with whom they worked quite consciously. By the way, the Russian Empire did the same thing in its POW camps.
But there were people who didn’t like Russia anyway, but who tried to enter into a tactical alliance with the Russian liberals - Chikolenko, Efremov, Grushevsky - they talk with Milyukov, publish something, explaining to the Russian public that they want only freedom, autonomy, or perhaps federation. But in fact, they understand that they will not get it if there is no big crisis within the country. That is, in general, there were no such big supporters of active cooperation with Russia among Ukrainian nationalists. They did not see partners.
The influence of the war was expressed in the fact that this non-mass movement, thanks to the changed situation, becomes mass. If the Austrian the empire and Germany use the Ukrainian factor, which means that then St. Petersburg also has to do something - already in the 15th year, the Tsar for the first time pronounces the word "Ukrainians" in a positive way. That is, he addresses the Ukrainians and says that he really appreciates their support. Previously, the tsar could not say this to the Ukrainians, he could only say this to the Little Russians. The war changed everything.

Revolution of 1917 and Civil War

In 1917, Lavr Kornilov ordered Skoropadsky to Ukrainianize his corps. It's summer, there's no October revolution yet. Skoropadsky tells him: you know, you haven’t seen these Ukrainian nationalists, but I saw that I didn’t like them much, so I wouldn’t advise you to play with such things. And Lavr Petrovich presumptuously says: don't fool your head, do what you are told.
As a result - where is Lavr Petrovich? And Skoropadsky by 1918 was the hetman of Ukraine. Skoropadsky, a Little Russian, a tsarist general, does not want this. But the order is carried out. And as a result, fate makes him a hetman. True, the Germans also helped, but it should be assumed that Skoropadsky, of all that could happen to Ukraine at that time, was the best way.
And when Skoropadsky is thrown off and people like Petlyura come, then this element, chieftains, has gone. People are completely irresponsible, having no state experience. They sometimes fought well, they were talented people, people like Zhukov came out of them. But as a political force they were terribly radical and very often irresponsible. Because all these state formations that arise there, they are completely ephemeral. Kyiv passes from hand to hand during this time 14 times.
In this sense, of course, the period of Skoropadsky is a period of stability, satiety, calmness - again, relying on the Germans and Austrians, but nonetheless. Skoropadsky was not lucky. He failed to establish contact with the Entente. If he could do it, he might have a chance.
There is a similar person - Mannerheim. Here he is also a tsarist general, he commanded the Finnish troops in Russian, because he did not speak Finnish. But he suppressed this Bolshevik revolution, the Red Finns, defended Finland, and in general, this Finland, such a safe harbor where Russian emigrants lived - one could dream about this. But the success or failure of the national outskirts then depended on whether there was real support for the Entente or not.
The Central Rada also did not have this support. Due to the fact that there was a conflict in Galicia with the Poles. If the Western Ukrainian republic had not waged war with Poland, perhaps Petliura would have received the support of the Entente.
Nevertheless, Petlyura in 1920 agreed with the Poles. Did he get support? So he came with Pilsudski to Ukraine and took Kyiv. But de facto, Pilsudski took Kyiv, and not Petlyura, who had a corps of 4,000. How many soldiers did Petliura have when the Red Army drove him out? As many. That is, he received no response.
Coming together with the Poles to Ukraine, where Polish large land ownership had just disappeared - in general, the peasants very quickly explained who was now the boss here. And all these Poles immediately rushed to Kyiv, and then back to Poland.

Who "created" modern Ukraine

And it turns out that in the end, the Bolsheviks played a key role in the creation of Ukraine and Ukrainianism. Because the Bolsheviks led a new huge empire, which was cut according to a completely different principle. In the Russian Empire, the right person is the Little Russian, and the Ukrainian is the wrong person. Under the Bolsheviks, the opposite is true - the concept of "Little Russian" is excluded altogether.
The Bolsheviks drew Ukraine on the map, they excluded the concept of “Little Russians”, and thus, they made a very big contribution to the formation of Ukrainian identity.
Another thing is that they explained that the Ukrainian is a brother and friend of the Russian, and that together they are building communism and fighting capitalism, fighting the Petliura agents who are agents of Polish imperialism.

Bandera

Was the alternative of Stepan Bendery and his comrades serious? Did she have at least some historical chance, the Ukrainian insurgent army, all those forces that arose on the territory of Poland, in the fight against Polish oppression in the 30s, did they have a chance to realize themselves in the 20th century?
All these chances, all these possibilities, in fact, did not depend on these movements. They depended on empires. If the Third Reich had decided that it needed the Ukrainians as a relatively independent force - for example, as the Slovaks, or as the Croatian Ustashe - they would have had a chance. If there is no such support, then it is also necessary that Germany defeat the USSR.
As for Bandera, is he different from other characters of that time? It seems to be quite typical for Eastern Europe, the authoritarian leader of the national movement.
No, not typical - the authoritarian rulers of the interwar period are people like Pilsudski, Horthy. These are people from the old empires, people who have a completely different idea, they are not fascists at all. Bandera is definitely a fascist. Just like Airen Kross, just like the Hungarian fascist Salashists. This does not mean at all that it is equal to Nazism - there were many fascists.
Bandera radical, he is a revolutionary he quite considers such things as ethnic cleansing to be acceptable, he fully supports - here Horthy had to be thrown off, because he resisted Holocaust as much as he could. The Bulgarian tsar, also an authoritarian leader, had to be persecuted and thrown off, because he resisted. Even Antonescu resisted as best he could. And Bandera, in general, with great pleasure was ready to participate in this from the very beginning.

Half life"

Could there have been some version of a “special” relationship between Russia and Ukraine, even in post-Soviet times, if the language issue had been resolved differently in the USSR? For example, not the collapse of the union of these countries, but some kind of federation, something else?
After the collapse of the USSR, which was laid down in the structure itself, was it possible to create some kind of structure, a union of some states? – yes, it is possible. But this is a very complicated process, and since quite a lot of players actually participated in it, both from the Ukrainian side and from the Russian side, and besides this, big international players who clearly stated that this idea was not very attractive to them.
There were chances, but alas - now we have a bloody war, mutual hatred, the concept of fraternal nations and special relations between the two peoples.
A sad stage, but this is not the end, because life does not end. This is the beginning of something new, but we'll see what. So far, it is still very uncertain, and dynamic.

Some Conclusions

1. The concept of a united Ukrainian Ukraine has clearly lagged behind the course of the natural development of modern Ukrainian society, which is already multinational and socio-cultural heterogeneous. Much more attractive is the idea of a pan-Slavic "federation", of which Canada is an approximate analogue in the Western world. In this case, the unification of the peoples of Ukraine would only strengthen the position of the country - at least in Eastern Europe. It did not limit the sovereign identity and would remove the internal tension from the "harmful" influence of the "Russian" and "European" worlds.
2. Ukraine could become a kind of center of contact between Europe and Eurasia, especially since this is a very advantageous (if civilized formalized) position. And, especially since the potential competitor for this role - Poland - does not understand the possible national profit at all.
3. An evolutionary breakthrough is possible if Ukraine, despite some artificiality of its historical national identity, continues to move forward, rather than trying to stagnate or go back in order to "again" experience the period of the nation state, but already "for real". Here, a clear example for Ukraine should be Russia, or rather, the situation when the slogan “Russia for Russians!” - "suddenly" will become the main paradigm. What will happen to Russia then? Obviously, nothing good.

PS. comments of "ancient ukrov" and "ancient Russian-Aryans" will be moderated with maximum international rigor.

Today, in the world, nationalism faces a new problem, which is very conventionally called the issue of globalization. If you look deeper, this means that the concepts of chauvinism, imperialism, compromised in dictionaries and life, are covered new form. And this poses serious problems for different peoples. From a purely national aspect, they move into an economic, social, cultural, military and diplomatic aspect. In the 21st century, the issues of nationalism will be somewhat different, but no less burning than at the turn of the 19th and 20th century and during the last century.

What does this moment mean for us Ukrainians? We are now faced with the need to clarify what tasks were set by the founders of the OUN and how they look from the angle of the 21st century. At the Congress in 1929 (the year of the creation of the OUN), the task was formulated: to fight for the restoration of the state independence of Ukraine as a prerequisite for the comprehensive development of the Ukrainian nation. We are happy that the Ukrainian people have proved their right to their state. We do not ascribe to ourselves the achievement of the goal at this stage, we only conceptually correctly expressed faith in the Ukrainian people. But we are at the second stage: the Ukrainian state must acquire a form that would ensure the development of the Ukrainian nation. This is precisely the main task of nationalists in the 21st century.

I would name three urgent tasks. The first is to realize that the remnants of communist influence are still present in the mentality of a significant part of the Ukrainian people. The second is to understand that the pressure on us from Russia has become more dangerous. In the past it was a direct occupation, today it is realized in the plane of spiritual struggle, culture, church, etc. The third is proper preparation for Europe. We declare that we are Europeans, but we do not realize what this means today. I read in The New York Times about a conference of representatives of Austria and Sweden regarding general direction actions of small European countries against the big ones. In other words, today we idealize Europe. First, we must arrange our internal affairs so that we, like Germany, France, England, participation in the European community does not threaten to trample on national interests. Lest it happen, ironically speaking, that we will become Europeans and cease to be Ukrainians.

The role of nationalists has not been exhausted, and we will fulfill it more successfully if different branches and formations that call themselves nationalist find a common language and work out a common program of action. We not only quarreled, but also worked fruitfully for 50 years, and we can work fruitfully in the future.

Slava Stetsko, people's deputy of Ukraine, chairman of the KUN:

Ukrainian nationalism appeared at a time when nationalism was generally fashionable in the world, and took shape in Western Ukraine in the Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists. It is difficult to talk about nationalism and not talk about the OUN. The organization took on a big task - to re-educate the Ukrainian people so that they could free themselves from captivity.

It is difficult to find another nation in Europe that would meet the beginning of the war the way we do. The act of June 30 in Lvov restored the independence of the Ukrainian state. Everyone who was involved in the OUN knew that the highest good is not the personal "I", but the nation. And the guarantor of the life of the nation should be the state. Everyone understood that Germany did not support the ideas of the Ukrainian state, but was at war with Russia for dominance over Ukrainian lands. Therefore, the organization decided that it would fight both "riders". We didn't expect help from anywhere. The other occupied nations of Europe had support, and none of them fought on two fronts. Ukrainian nationalism mobilized every person. The struggle was carried on not only until the end of the war, but also until 1956, when the UPA was disbanded.

The author of the article says that there have been 50 years of quarreling. I know one thing: these were years of great struggle on all fronts. Apparently, there were also conflicts: mainly in exile, between the miller's sheep and the gang of sheep. But even abroad, hard work was in full swing. A worldwide anti-communist organization, the Anti-Communist League of Nations, was organized. The Anti-Bolshevik Bloc of Nations collaborated with it - a product of our nationalism. We acted almost like a state: our offices were everywhere.

Once our goal was to build an independent state, and today our goal is the development of this state so that it takes its rightful place among the free peoples of the world.

Vasily Kuk, UPA commander:

The OUN has always been active: Dontsov called it "acting nationalism" - nationalism that works. The program of the Ukrainian nationalists at the first stage pursued the goal of mobilizing the people for armed struggle. In 1941, we created groups, sent them to all regions of Ukraine. And they began to form new people - nationalists, who put the interests of the nation above all else. We introduced the entire Ukrainian people to our ideas: even illiterate peasants became nationalists.

Kost Bondarenko speaks of the decline of nationalism. The thing is that we need to go to the people, build specific organizations in the field. the nationalism of the past had power, since at that time there was an OUN cell in every village. If there is no structure from top to bottom, then none nationalist organization will have no effect.

Sergey Zhizhko, KUHN:

Traditional nationalism as an ideology now requires modernizing in accordance with the level of society that is developing today in Ukraine. As a social movement, nationalism is called upon to defend national interests. I believe that today the classic nationalist movement is in decline. This does not mean that it is not there or that it is dying, but it needs a creative impetus to develop the discussion.

The presence of nationalism in politics - at least 15-20 percent of the electorate, the nationalist faction in the Verkhovna Rada, the effective protection of the national interests of Ukrainians. social or liberal democracy does not provide for a nationalist worldview as a basic one, but in the Western world, parties of this direction, being in power and even in opposition, protect national interests. Unfortunately, this is not the case with us. Social democrats, socialists, liberals are only trying to defend something in the Ukrainian state. The bloc Our Ukraine, the Yulia Tymoshenko Bloc and the Unity bloc most realistically express the interests of the nation.

Nationalism is designed to revive and develop the nation - at least for Ukraine, this is relevant. This requires a holistic state concept, built on the national idea. President Kuchma used to say: "Tell me what to build, and I will build it." Then he assured that “the national idea did not work”, and in his speech on the 10th anniversary of Independence he again recalled the national idea, but we see how all this is slowing down.

Gennadiy Udovenko, People's Deputy of Ukraine, Chairman of the NRU:

We do not have a state ideology. Today we do not form our people in the spirit of patriotism (and I equate patriotism and nationalism), devotion to the Ukrainian independent state. The state ideology should be aimed at liberating Ukrainians from the inferiority complex that was imposed by Russia for 350 years, and then Soviet Union. The Ukrainian national idea should become the dominant ideology in our country. Let it not be called nationalism - we must take into account the mentality, it is changing, but very slowly. We must form a political nation like the American one. When an American is asked who he is, he answers: American. May add: Ukrainian or some other origin. This is not citizenship! Everyone who linked their fate with Ukraine should be brought up in such a way as to say with pride: I am a Ukrainian!

Andrei Gaidamakha, Chairman of the OUN Provision (R):

There are many definitions of nationalism, many of them tendentious, and there is no shortage of clichés - this is where Kost Bondarenko begins his article. The English Universal Dictionary, published in London, gives the following definitions: “Self-awareness and a sense of pride in the special character and spirit of one's people; a general sense of national unity; a political movement aimed at asserting national independence when the people are enslaved by a foreign nation. And here is the Ukrainian dictionary, published by the publishing house "Perun": "Ideology and politics in the field of national relations preaching the superiority of national interests over universal ones; the domination of one nation at the expense of the oppression of another; incitement of national hatred". What then does "chauvinism", "imperialism" mean? The second meaning: "Movement aimed at the struggle for the independence of the nation against foreign oppressors" - echoes the Western definition, and the third: "Movement for the preservation and development of national traditions, culture, language, literature, art, and the like" - apolitical, but also acceptable. You see how different approaches to the concept of "nationalism" can be misleading and become the basis for pointless discussions.

Humanistic psychology evaluates both patriotism and nationalism as positive human feelings, the highest manifestation of spiritual needs. Pathological manifestations nationalism were in the past, but they must be called by their names: national or fascism - and not transfer these meanings to nationalism.

Valentina Piskun, Candidate of Historical Sciences, Deputy Director of the Center for Ukrainian Studies:

Analyzing the modern definitions of nationalism, we offer the following: “the manifestation of the worldview position of the individual and the community, the form of effectiveness and ideology, which emphasize belonging to the nation as a consolidating factor of the community, see the advantage of national interests and defend them in all directions and spheres.”

In the world there are different approaches to the definition of nationalism. Political scientists Gelner and Anderson link the emergence of nationalism with the emergence of modern and with the collapse of the traditional class society, emphasizing that it was nationalism that created an identity shared by everyone, regardless of class. In a pre-industrial society there was no need for nationalism, it develops only in modern world.

The second approach: Anthony Smith believes that nationalism has deep roots and is based on ethnic characteristics: language, beliefs, traditions, myths, symbols - and this is laid down during the formation of ethnic communities. The search for the Czech scientist Miroslav Groch is close to this idea.

In world science, nationalism has never been considered in the same plane as it was interpreted by Soviet historiography, which negatively assessed Ukrainian bourgeois nationalism. He was a bogey and a scarecrow throughout the existence of the USSR.

Ukrainian thinkers Vyacheslav Lipinsky, Vladimir Starosolsky, Dmitry Dontsov, Ippolit Bochkovsky made a pan-European contribution to the development of political science. Our scientists do not disseminate the knowledge laid down in their time by our theoreticians. Bochkovsky's terminology is used by the whole world - for example, he introduced the concept of "ethnopolitics".

Nationalism is the essential soil, core and carrier national idea which certainly materializes such a concept as national interests. Today they consist, first of all, in self-expression of their Ukrainianness and competitiveness in the world community.

Stepan Gavrish, Doctor of Law, Deputy Chairman of the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine:

Nationalism is inherent in any nation that identifies itself in historical time and builds its future. For Ukrainians, however, it became a tool for creating statehood and went through a difficult path: from a fanatical awareness of the mission of reviving the Ukrainian spirit to developing a constructive mechanism for building the Ukrainian state. Now we are approaching the time when the topic of Ukrainian nationalism will cease to be the subject of discussions and political science research, but will become a common component of self-development on the way to creating a political, conscious Ukrainian nation.

Until the Ukrainian nation unites around the national idea, it is impossible and unrealistic to talk about integration into Europe. I am convinced that when not only the right, but also the left can be called national patriots, we will have reason to assert that nationalism has become the normal essence of the historical path of Ukraine, it has turned from a stumbling block of various political forces into a formula for our success. I am opposed to erecting the newest barricades around nationalism, where we will destroy what we have been waiting for so long from history, the united Ukrainian people in a united state, not with weapons, but with sharp confrontation in political discussions.