Ban Ki-moon's statement to the UN that "Ukraine is not a state - it is an administrative district of the USSR" interested us in the study of how the historical borders of Ukraine were formed.

NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen warns the Russian Federation against encroachments on the East of Ukraine, as this will result in “serious consequences” for Moscow in relations with the alliance and further isolate it on international level”, and calls on the Russian Federation to withdraw “tens of thousands of military men” from the Ukrainian border.

Meanwhile, the news is rapidly spreading throughout the Russian blogosphere:

Surprise to the entire South-East from Ban Ki-moon! WHAT A NEWS!!! ​
On ThamesTV - an English channel, they show: the Ukrainian question is being discussed in the parliament, as usual, since the morning. It turns out that yesterday Ban Ki-moon made an interesting statement at the UN, and for some reason the Ukrainian media stubbornly keep silent about it!.. And ours too...

The fact is that The UN Security Council once again considered the issue of Ukraine, and the experts made the following conclusion within the framework of international law: it turns out that since the collapse of the USSR, Ukraine has not carried out and has not properly registered with the UN the demarcation of its borders as a state ... They remain on the borders administrative district USSR according to the usual agreement within the framework of the CIS, which has no legal force in the UN.

Since the country does not have its official border within the framework of international law, there is no reason to talk about its violation by anyone. There is also no reason to talk about separatism, i.e. forcible reconfiguration of the border. You can't change what doesn't exist!

Until the information is confirmed, there are no official reports, but it turns out that Ukraine is not a state at all! And since Russia is the legal heir of the USSR, then all of Ukraine belongs to Russia legally.

P.S.
There is nothing surprising here. Ukrainian politicians had no time for demarcation or politics. All 23 years of sawing loot.

This is the backlog made by the Soviet builders of the state! The USSR is legally alive! And everything that happened after him is illegal and has no meaning. And the mere understanding of who voiced this will put things in order in millions of stupid heads. History is changing and happening right before our eyes! GLORY USSR!

Nazarbayev also contributed

Historical reference: How the historical borders of Ukraine were formed

Now it is customary to talk about Ukraine as the largest country in Europe. This is, in general, correct. Now the territory of Ukraine is almost 604 thousand km2, while the area of ​​France is only 547 thousand km2, and Spain - 497. Only Russia is larger than Ukraine with its 3.7 million km2.

However, one must understand simple thing- the merit of Ukraine itself in the expansion of its territory, in fact, was not. Let's consider some stages of the formation of the borders of modern Ukraine.

The first actually Ukrainian state can be considered the state created by Bogdan Khmelnytsky during the liberation war against Poland (the Commonwealth).

In fairness, it should be noted that Khmelnitsky has never been a fighter for the independence of Ukraine. His correspondence with the Polish king leaves no doubt that he fought for the legal order in the Commonwealth in general (remember that his estate was subjected to an attempted “raider seizure”) and for the rights of the Orthodox gentry in particular. Not meeting understanding, he received what he was looking for from the Moscow Tsar.

As of 1654, the borders of the state of Bogdan Khmelnitsky looked like this:

It is quite obvious that the hetman did not lay any claim to southern lands, Crimea and Donbass. This was all the area of ​​the "Wild Field", controlled by the Crimean Khan, who, at that time, was an ally of Khmelnitsky.

He did not lay claim to the lands of Sloboda, which, although they were inhabited by refugees from Ukraine, were, nevertheless, under the rule of the Russian tsar.

Galicia and Volyn were partially liberated during the war of liberation, but after the defeat near Berestechko, they remained under the control of the Poles. Khmelnitsky, by the way, did not seek to liberate the territories, but only the Orthodox people. That is why he limited himself to indemnity from Lviv - there was, in fact, no one to release there, Ukrainians (or rather, Rusyns) lived there only on one Russkaya street, and even those, one must understand, fled from possible repressions from the Poles.

Well, about Transcarpathia, which was part of Hungary, there was no talk at all.

Historical borders of Ukraine in the Russian Empire

When we talk about the times of Catherine II, they prefer to recall the defeat of the Zaporizhzhya Sich and the official introduction of serfdom (de facto it existed even before that). However, it is somehow naturally forgotten that it is in the course of Russian-Turkish wars In the 18th century, the former lands of the "Wild Field" - Novorossia and Crimea were settled (by the way - to a large extent by Ukrainians). The latter was attached to Russian Empire in 1783.

It was then that they founded Largest cities the modern South of Ukraine - Elisavetgrad (Kirovograd, 1775), Yekaterinoslav (Dnepropetrovsk, 1776), Kherson (1778), Nikolaev (1789), Odessa (1794).

Already after the death of Catherine, in 1812, Bessarabia - Moldavia and Budzhak - part of the current Odessa region in the interfluve of the Prut and Dniester rivers, was annexed to Russia.

If this is “occupation”, then the lands of the Nogai and Crimean Tatars. The Nogai horde, by the way, broke up, and the Nogais now live in Russia and Turkey.

In addition, according to the results of the second and third partitions of Poland in 1793-1795, Right-Bank Ukraine and Volyn were annexed to Russia. The remaining Western Ukrainian territories (Galicia, Bukovina and Transcarpathia) remained part of Austria-Hungary.

The Russian Empress did not only what the hetmans could not do, but also what the hetmans did not even plan.

Surprisingly, the current "patriots" do not at all feel any gratitude to Catherine for such a radical expansion of the borders of Ukraine. True, speaking out against the monuments to Catherine, they are not at all in a hurry to return the lands that she annexed. Moreover, Southern Ukraine (not to mention Crimea), unlike the Right Bank and Volhynia, was not a Ukrainian ethnic territory in any way and became it precisely thanks to Russian conquests. Unless, of course, we talk about the “proto-Ukrainian Trypillia civilization”, which was located mainly on the territory of Romania and Moldova.

Historical borders of Ukraine in the period of "free zmagan"

The period after the collapse of the Russian Empire did not give any special territorial acquisitions. No, there are many absolutely fantastic maps of the Ukrainian People's Republic, covering not only Galicia, but also the Kuban.

However, in reality the UNR was only one of state formations created on the territory of the Ukrainian provinces of the Russian Empire. In 1917, this territory was divided among four state entities.

In 1918, this territory was united by the German occupation administration, which created the puppet state of Hetman Skoropadsky. Hetman, later, had to flee with the German occupiers...

The revived UNR managed to unite with the Western Ukrainian People's Republic, but this unification was formal, since it was at that moment that the ZUNR did not have its own territory, but was represented by the Petrushevich government and the Ukrainian Galician army ... Moreover, after the “unification”, the ZUNR continued to wage its war against the Poles , later finding it possible to cooperate with the "Muscovites" - first with the whites, and then with the reds.

The UNR, in fact, did not control its territory, since, besides itself, the quasi-state of Father Makhno, the White Guard state-army, was located on it, in the end, the Ukrainian Socialist Soviet Republic created in March 1919. It was not for nothing that it was said that "in the car - the Directory, under the car - the territory."

Petliura, by the way, ended up cooperating with the Poles, finally refusing both the “evil” from the ZUNR and the territory of Western Ukraine.

In the end, in 1920-1922, most of the Ukrainian lands (including Transnistria) were united as part of the Ukrainian SSR, which, in turn, became part of the USSR. Part of the Ukrainian lands remained under Polish and Romanian occupation.

Historical borders of Ukraine within the USSR

Since 1939, a new stage of the unification of Ukrainian lands began.

In September 1939, the USSR liberated the territories of Western Ukraine, previously captured by Poland. Now Soviet Union they criticize for "aggression" against Poland, condemn "cooperation" with Hitler and condemn the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact, but, for some reason, they do not propose to draw legal conclusions from this. The legal conclusions should be to return the territory of Galicia, Volhynia and part of Podolia to Poland, which “innocently suffered from Soviet aggression”. It's strange - we condemn the annexation of Galicia to Ukraine, but we are in no hurry to give it back.

Something else is even more surprising... The same people who condemn the "Soviet occupation" of Western Ukraine are simultaneously condemning the Polish occupation of the same territories in 1918. However, they are at least tolerant of their re-occupation by the Poles in 1920...

In 1940, the USSR delivered an ultimatum to Romania, demanding the return of the lands occupied in 1918. Romania ceded the territories of Northern Bukovina and Bessarabia.

A separate story took place in Transcarpathia, which, after the collapse of Czechoslovakia, proclaimed its independence in the status of Carpathian Ukraine (not at all striving, of course, to join Soviet Ukraine - there was no other at that time). It lasted only a few days, being occupied by Hungary.

In 1945, Transcarpathia was liberated from the German-Hungarian invaders, returned to Czechoslovakia, and then passed to the USSR.

Note that we are talking about a region that historically for several centuries was part of Hungary and even now does not territorially associate itself with Ukraine (a common expression for Transcarpathians is “to go to Ukraine”, for example, to Lviv).

And, finally, in 1954 Crimea was transferred from the RSFSR to the Ukrainian SSR. The official reason is "considering the commonality of the economy, territorial proximity and close economic and cultural ties between the Crimean region and the Ukrainian SSR." Together with Crimea, Sevastopol also became part of Ukraine, although the legal grounds for the transfer of the city of republican subordination were not obvious. However, until the first half of the 90s, the issue of the status of the city was not raised, and later it was decided in favor of Ukraine.

However, the process also went in other directions. In 1940, Transnistria (Moldavian ASSR) was transferred to Moldova. In 1945, part of the territory of Western Ukraine, including the cities of Przemysl and Kholm, went to Poland. When clarifying the administrative boundaries within the USSR, some areas were transferred to Russia, and some, on the contrary, to Ukraine.

Historical borders of Ukraine during the period of independence

However, in the name of Euro-Atlantic integration, Viktor Yushchenko sacrificed part of the continental shelf in favor of Romania. Although there were every reason not to give up the shelf with energy deposits. To do this, it was enough not to recognize the territory as disputed ...

conclusions

Historically, the territory of Ukraine is represented by approximately 8 regions of central Ukraine.

Western Ukraine (including Transcarpathia) could not be annexed and held by any Ukrainian authorities - there were not enough forces. Even when separate Ukrainian states were created on this territory, they could not maintain control over the territory. It turned out to be on the shoulder of tsarist Russia and the Stalinist USSR.

The south of Ukraine, Donbass and Crimea were annexed by the Russian Empire and transferred to Ukraine by the USSR. In fact, the territory largest state Europe" was formed by Catherine II and Stalin, and the relative independence, which generally allowed talking about some kind of "borders of Ukraine", she received from the hands of Lenin.

So people who talk about "Russian" and "Soviet" occupation should be ready to revise the historical borders of Ukraine - in favor of other victims of "Russian" and "Soviet" "occupation". For, so to speak, our and your freedom... Or, nevertheless, "Freedom"?

Vasily Stoyakin, director of the Center for Political Marketing

Source of information about the historical borders of Ukraine: dnepr.info

Μικρὰ Ῥωσία , lat. Russia/Ruthenia minor, fr. la Petite Russie, German. Kleinrussland) - the historical name of a number of regions in Eastern Europe, mainly modern Ukraine.

The name appeared at the beginning of the 14th century as a Byzantine church-administrative definition of the Galicia-Volyn and Turov-Pinsk principalities. Since the 16th century, the name of all Russian lands as part of the Commonwealth (later White Rus' was singled out from them). Since the 17th century, Little Russia has been one of official names Hetmanate. Later it was used to refer to the Russian Empire and Little Russian Governorate. The term was practically not used in Soviet historiography.

However, other sources indicate a different interpretation of the origin of the term "Little Rus'". So, according to G.F. Miller, the term “Little Russia” arose when this territory was part of Poland: “In the discussion of the Grand Duchy of Moscow, which was under the rule of the Grand Duke Ivan Vasilyevich I, who lived with the aforementioned King of Poland, Kazimir, at one time, it became more widespread than before, the Kiev region could be called Little Russia, by which name the Poles called it, and from Polyakov this name was adopted and put into use in Great Russia, and so they began to be Great, Little, White and Black Russia, of which three Poles and Lithuania in those unfortunate times, when the Russian State was under the Tatar yoke, were captured. (Historical writings on Little Russia and Little Russians by G.F. Miller, Moscow, University Printing House, 1840)

Galicia-Volyn principality

For the first time the term "Little Russia" occurs at the beginning of the 14th century in Byzantium to define the modern Western Ukrainian lands in church-administrative practice. The Galician Metropolis, established in 1303, covered six dioceses: Galician, Przemysl, Vladimir-Volyn, Kholm, Lutsk and Turov (that is, also part of the territory of modern Belarus), which in Byzantine sources were called Little Rus' (Greek. Μικρά Ῥωσία - Mikrá Rhōsía) as opposed to Great Rus' ( Μεγάλη Ῥωσία - Megálē Rhōsía), which since 1354 was understood as the territory of 19 dioceses under the rule of the Kiev Metropolitan, whose residence (“seat”) was in Vladimir-on-Klyazma in 1300-1325, and in the period from 1325 to 1461 in Moscow.

However, on geographical maps XVIII century, published by the Russian Academy of Sciences in 1736-1738, and in the Russian Atlas of 1745, the name Little Russia is not found.

Little Russian identity

Little Russian national idea quite fit into the general imperial and Soviet cultural and ethnic concept.

Little Russia as a historical region of the Russian Empire

After the liquidation of the Hetmanate in 1764, the Little Russian Governorate with the administrative center in the city of Glukhov was created from a part of the Left-bank Ukraine. In 1775, the Little Russian and Kiev provinces were united, the provincial center was moved to Kyiv. In 1781, the Little Russian Governorate was divided into three viceroyalties (provinces) - Chernigov, Novgorod-Seversk and Kiev. In 1796, the Little Russian province was recreated, Chernigov was appointed the provincial center, after which it was divided again in 1802 into two provinces: Poltava and Chernigov. In 1802, the Little Russian Governor General was established as part of these provinces. In 1835, the Kharkov province was annexed to it. Until 1837, the residence of the Governor-General was Poltava, since 1837 - Kharkov. Abolished in 1856.

Titles Little Russia, Little Russian, Little Russians were used in relation to the entire southwestern region during the 19th and early 20th centuries.

Name Little Russia until 1917 it was used semi-officially for the collective designation of Volhynia, Kyiv, Podolsk, Kharkiv, Poltava and Chernihiv Governorates. That is how, mother and "Little Russia", Left-bank Ukraine was called Grigory Skovoroda, and Sloboda Ukraine - his own aunt, which indicated the absence of a pejorative connotation in the term "Little Russia".

The cultural and historical specificity of Little Russia, as well as the regional patriotism of the Little Russians, were quite acceptable in the eyes of the supporters of the concept of a large Russian nation, as long as they did not come into conflict with this concept. Moreover, in the first half of the 19th century, Little Russian specificity aroused keen interest in St. Petersburg and Moscow as a more colorful, romantic version of Russianness.

- Russia. History: Little Russia // encyclopedic Dictionary F. A. Brockhaus and I. A. Efron. - St. Petersburg: Brockhaus-Efron. 1890-1907.

Throughout the entire period of the entry of the territory of modern Ukraine into the Russian Empire, the term Little Russia in a broad sense was used as a synonym for Ukraine, both in everyday life and at the official level. In this case, the term Little Russia could extend both to the lands of the middle Dnieper region and Sloboda Ukraine. In a narrow sense, the term Little Russia continued to be used in relation to the lands of the Left-Bank Hetmanate.

At the same time, already in the second half of the 19th century, the name Ukraine becomes more widely used in everyday life, private and public life and almost completely replaces all other designations (including the term "Little Russia").

Ukraine after 1917

After 1917, the historical names "Little Russia", "Little Russia" and words derived from it were practically withdrawn from historiographic use in the Ukrainian SSR, RSFSR and the USSR and had an almost negative connotation. In the course of the All-Union Census of 1926, census takers were instructed not to record the respondents as Little Russians under any circumstances.

In the Ukrainian historical literature of the period of the Ukrainian SSR, the term "Little Russia" was also used quite rarely. [ ]

Term Little Russia Nowadays

Both in Soviet and independent Ukraine, the term "Little Russia" is rarely used in historiography. As historical designations, the historical names of the regions of Ukraine are usually used (Poltava region, Chernihiv region, etc.). It is allowed, however, to use the term "Little Russia" as a reference to past administrative-territorial units, for example, in articles and monographs about the Little Russian province, the Little Russian Governor General, etc.

see also

Notes

  1. Little Russia - Etymological Dictionary of the Russian Language by Max Fasmer
  2. Big Encyclopedic Dictionary. Little Rus'
  3. Little Russia- article from the Great Soviet Encyclopedia.
  4. Florya B.N. On some features of the development of the ethnic self-consciousness of the Eastern Slavs in the Middle Ages - Early Modern Times // Russia-Ukraine: history of relationships / Ed. ed. A. I. Miller, V. F. Reprintsev, M., 1997. S. 9-27
  5. Little Russia (Russian). TSB 3rd edition. Retrieved September 20, 2019.
  6. AV Kartashev Essays on the history of the Russian Church. Volume 1 (indefinite) (unavailable link). Retrieved May 4, 2011. Archived from the original on December 22, 2011.
  7. Ukraine. Chronology of development. - volume 3. - K., KRION, 2009, ISBN 978-966-16-5818-8, p.98-99
  8. Rusina O. V. Ukraine under the Tatars and Lithuania. - Kiev: Vydavnichiy dіm "Alternative", 1998. - S. 274. (Ukrainian)
  9. Hrushevsky M.S. History of Ukraine-Rus - K.: "Naukova Dumka", 1994. - T. I. - S. 1−2. (ukr.)
  10. Trubachev O. N. In search of unity. − 3rd ed., add. - M.: "Nauka", 2005. - S. 86.
  11. Quoted from: Rusina O. V. Ukraine under the Tatars and Lithuania. - Kiev: Vydavnichiy dіm "Alternative", 1998. - p.276.
  12. Part III, section II, article 1. ZAHARIA KOPISTENSKY. CHRESTOMATY OF OLD UKRAINIAN LITERATURE (indefinite) . izbornyk.org.ua. Retrieved April 9, 2019.

Until 1917, the border of Ukraine became a stumbling block between venerable professors of history, famous politicians and cultural figures more than once. The formation of a modern state stretched over centuries, during which the ancient cities and peoples were replaced more than once or twice.

The arrival of the Cimmerians

The first people on the Ukrainian territory were the Cimmerians, who were mentioned in the reflection of the era - "Odyssey".

Ancient nomads who spoke one of the dialects of the Iranian language group visited the Black Sea region around the 9th century BC. It is assumed that the Cimmerian-Cimmerian tribes from the Lower Volga region roamed, and the favorable climate forced them to linger in the wild steppes for two hundred years . The historical borders of Ukraine until 1917 were constantly changing, and it began almost 3,000 years ago, and since that time the territory has repeatedly expanded, decreased and taken on unimaginable shapes.

Since the nomads did not know the letters, they did not leave information about themselves, with the exception of archaeological sites and rare mentions in the chronicles of that time. Contemporaries had something to say about terrible savages - most historians described the Cimmers as ruthless and skillful warriors, and the customs of the tribes awed enlightened peoples.

Wild Scythians

Herodotus in his writings mercilessly walked through the customs and social system of the nomads and described in colors the ruthless extermination of the Chernoles aborigines by the Cimmerians. What was the border of Ukraine before 1917, we know, but it could lie anywhere, if the steppe horsemen did not force out the less developed inhabitants of the forests.

However, the fate of the Chernolesians very quickly befell the Cimmerians. They, in turn, could not repulse the Scythians, who raided the parking lots, robbed the dwellings and led away the horses in herds.

The next wave of nomads (Scythians) reached its peak in the 5th-4th centuries BC.

The first centralized stronghold of culture on the territory of Ukraine - Great Scythia - was described by Herodotus. The borders of Ukraine until 1917, from the time of the Scythians, took the form of an expanded rectangle around the Northern Black Sea region from the Danube in the west to the eastern part of the Sea of ​​Azov.

From the north, the space is limited by Pripyat and the line that runs through modern Chernigov, touches Kursk and Voronezh. In the III century BC, the Scythians in the Black Sea steppes finally replaced the Sarmatians. On the Black Sea plains, the tribes did not hold out for about six centuries (until the first millennium BC), until they were driven away by the Goths and Huns. After their invasion, the territory of Ukraine is dominated by the Slavic tribes of the Ants and related Slavs.

The border of Ukraine changed before 1917 great amount times: at a slower pace during the time of the nomads, and then changes in the shape of the territory began to occur at cosmic speeds.

Sklavins, Antes, Wends

The Gothic historian Jordanes writes about the Slavs and often mentions them. According to him, the Sclave Slavs had a common ancestor, and they live in three Vendian tribes - brave Wends, strong Antes, their smaller brothers- clavins. But in the 7th century, the French chronicler and historian Fredegar said that "the sklavins are the Wends."

Archaeologists often find Antian treasures, consisting of gold and silver, mined during campaigns and raids on nearby territories. Antes warriors were armed with bows and arrows, shields, long swords were also included in the standard equipment. The Antes were considered the most powerful Slavic tribe: they were mercenary soldiers in the Byzantine army.

Prisoners were often used as slaves, selling them or taking a ransom from their nearest neighbors was a kind of etiquette of that time. Nevertheless, after some time, the captured slave could become a free and full member of the community. The main deity of the Antes - Perun - was considered relatively docile. Bloodless sacrifice - fundamental principle beliefs; among the offerings on the altars of idols, archaeologists found only cooked food, herbs and jewelry. During the time of the Ants, the process of the birth of Kyiv and Volyn began, which once again changed the borders of Ukraine. Until 1917, however, it was still a long way off.

The origin of Kievan Rus

The next milestone in the history of the development of the modern state was Kievan Rus. The city, which became the cultural and social center of a vast territory, was repeatedly rebuilt, burned and destroyed. Until 1917, the border of Ukraine changed along with it - either it covered nearby lands, or it narrowed to the suburbs of Kyiv.

The state around the Kievan settlement arose in the 9th century, when the distant Eastern Slavs and the tribes of the Finno-Ugric group united under the rule of the prince of the Rurik dynasty. The history of Kyiv as an independent city-state begins with the capture of the capital by Oleg, who brought the eastern Slavic tribes with him.

Rise of the state

The border of Ukraine before the revolution of 1917 (somewhere at the end of the 10th century, at times was beyond the Dniester and in the upper reaches in the west, covered the Taman Peninsula in the southeast and was lost in the upper reaches of the Northern Dvina. Geography also helps to represent the cities Kievan Rus and understand its territorial structure. The oldest of the settlements is Kyiv, and Chernigov, ancient Pereyaslavl, glorified Smolensk, promising Rostov, new Ladoga, fabulous Pskov and new Polotsk followed it step by step.

The reign of princes Vladimir (960-1015) and Yaroslav (1019-1054) was the time of the greatest prosperity of the state. It's amazing what the border of Ukraine was like before the 1917 revolution! The territories expanded unusually: from the Carpathians to the Baltic steppes and the Black Sea region.

By the middle of the 12th century, a dark era of feudal fragmentation began in the mighty Kievan Rus, unrest broke into a dozen separate principalities ruled by various branches of the Rurikovich. The beginning of 1132 is considered the official beginning of intra-family squabbles, when, after the death of Mstislav the Great, the son of Vladimir Monomakh, the power of the Prince of Kyiv ceased to recognize Polotsk and Novgorod at the same time. Kyiv was not officially considered the capital until the very Tatar-Mongol invasion (1237-1240). What would be the border of Ukraine before the revolution of 1917, if there was no Troubles? Perhaps Kievan Rus would have grown to the size of Rome and Carthage, in order to ingloriously fall under the burden of problems beyond the strength of huge empires.

Collapse and Trouble

In the battle with the Mongols on the Kalka River (on the territory of the modern Donetsk region) at the end of May 1223, almost all South Russian princes took part, many of them, as well as many noble boyars, fell in the battle. The closest relatives, servants and older descendants died with the princes, which led to the bleeding of the best clans of the country. The victory went to the Mongols, and the survivors were expected to be captured and disgraced. With the weakening of the southern Russian principalities, the Hungarian and Lithuanian feudal lords stepped up their offensive, but the influence of the princes of Chernigov, Novgorod and Kyiv regions also increased. What would be the border of Ukraine before 1917, if everything turned out in favor of the Russians? Historians suggest that the petty princelings would have squabbled with each other with the same result - in the battles for power and land, the most noble and well-born people of Kievan Rus would have perished.

Fall of Kyiv

In 1240, the Mongols (led by Batu Khan, the grandson of the formidable Genghis Khan) turned Kyiv into ashes. The remains of the city were received by Prince Yaroslav Vsevolodovich, whom the Mongols recognized as the main one, like his son Alexander Nevsky. But they did not transport the capital city to Kyiv and remained in Vladimir - away from the wild nomads with their arrows, herds and incomprehensible customs.

Before the revolution in 1917, where was the border? Where in the days of Kievan Rus battles were in full swing. Then the trend was firmly and finally established that every span must be taken by force.

Galician Principality

In 1245, in Yaroslav, during the battle (in modern Poland, the city of Yaroslav on the San River), Danila of Galicia and his army defeated the regiments of the Hungarian and Polish feudal lords. Danila of Galicia, on the basis of the Western alliance against the Golden Horde, received the title of king from the pope in 1253. The reign of Danil Romanovich was the period of the greatest rise of the Galicia-Volyn principality. The strength of the state caused concern in the Golden Horde. The principality was forced to pay tribute to the Horde constantly, and the rulers undertook to send troops for joint campaigns with the Mongols. Nevertheless, the Galicia-Volyn principality managed to successfully resolve many issues of foreign policy in its favor.

The border of Ukraine before the revolution in 1917 changed rapidly. This happened in the time of Danila Galitsky. In the second half of the 13th century, the Galicia-Volyn principality did not control the south of the territory, but then regained control over these lands and gained access to the Black Sea. After 1323, all the newly acquired territories were again lost for many centuries. Polissya was annexed by Lithuania at the beginning of the 14th century in a series of wars between the Kingdom of Poland and the territories that ceded to Poland in 1349 became a kind of symbol of the end of the heyday. Since that year, the Galicia-Volyn principality was in official decline.

New territories

The border of Ukraine before the revolution of 1917, as already noted, changed a myriad of times, and at the time when Lithuania was able to resist the Mongols on the territory of modern Kirovograd, the outlines again changed beyond recognition.

Many Orthodox princes were not against rapprochement with Poland, although in 1381-1384, 1389-1392 and in 1432-1439. There were three civil wars. Many cities, including, for example, Lvov, Kyiv, Vladimir-Volynsky, received their own government according to

In the 90s of the XIV century. thanks to an alliance with the Mongols, his cousin Jagiello Vitovt managed to peacefully annex the entire vast territory south of the vast Wild Field. This is how the historical borders of Ukraine developed; before the revolution of 1917, they subsequently changed little. New areas allowed the economy and society of that time to gradually acquire recognizable features.

Hetmans and Ruins

The next reformer and iconic ruler was Bogdan Khmelnitsky. Rebellion 1648-1654 under his leadership led to the emergence of an autonomous hetman. It is not known for certain, before the intervention of the Cossack chieftain, where the border of Ukraine passed. Until 1917, the state experienced many more significant events. Vague and fragmentary information was often based only on ancient statutes and documents that had long lost their relevance. In Khmelnitsky, the Rada adopted a number of decisions, which resulted in the Russian-Polish war of 1654-1667. Its course contributed to the development of civil wars between various hetmans. Left-bank Ukraine wanted to be part of Russia, while Right-bank Ukraine sought to create a strong alliance with Poland.

Beginning of Novorossiya

Now you know where the border of Ukraine was before 1917 in different historical stages. During the Northern War, Hetman Mazepa unexpectedly took the side of the one who was defeated in the battle of Poltava. As a result, the autonomy and rights of the Hetmanate were limited, and the management of the vast territory was under the jurisdiction of the Little Russian Collegium. The period after the collapse of the Russian Empire did not give any special territorial acquisitions.

The way the border of Ukraine was formed before the revolution of 1917 depended on the foreign and domestic policy of the state. The name "Novorossia" and the corresponding outlines of the territory of the country acquired at the end of the 18th century.

4 442

Little Rus' (tracing paper from the Middle Greek Μικρὰ Ῥωσσία), Little Russia, later Little Russia, less often Little Russia - the name that appeared in Byzantium at the beginning of the XIV century to determine the Galicia-Volyn land in church and administrative terms. Also the name of the territory of the Dnieper region in the XV-XVI centuries and the Left-bank Ukraine after its entry as an autonomy into the Russian kingdom, after the oath of the Ukrainian Cossacks at the Pereyaslav Rada in the XVII century. In the Russian Empire from the 18th to the beginning of the 20th century, it was used as the name of a historical region and the Little Russian province.

During the XIV-XVI centuries, along with the former name of Rus' (Greek Ρωσία - Russia), new ones appear in the sources - to designate its two parts: Great Rus' subordinate to the Golden Horde and part of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania - Lesser Rus'. Little Rus' and Great Rus', descended from Greek namesΜικρά Ρωσία - Mikra Rosia and Μακρά Ρωσία - Makra Rosia, which were used in the church-administrative practice of Byzantium from the beginning of the XIV century. The Greeks, by analogy with the terms "Greece Minor" and " Magna Graecia”(area with ancient Greek colonies), under “Little Russia” they understood the territory of the Dnieper region - that is, the core, that place, “where it came from” the state. And under "Great Russia" - all other lands that were once conquered or subjugated and were part of Kievan Rus. This Hellenized version of the name was accepted and popularized by the official circles of the Russian kingdom. According to Oleg Trubachev, the name "small" arose as a contrast to the already established name "Great Rus'", which referred to more northern lands and meant "outer", "new" Rus'. Also indicative are the names of cities in the "Great Rus'" - Veliky Novgorod, Veliky Rostov, in contrast to southern Novgorod and Rostov. "Small" in this case means "original", original Rus', and "Great" - external, colonized Rus'. In addition to Great and Lesser Greece, in ancient times there were Lesser and Great Macedonia, where the capital of Alexander the Great, the city of Pella (on the territory of modern Greece), was called “Great” Macedonia, and all the lands conquered by him were called “Great”. Also in Poland, since ancient times, similar terms have been used in relation to the first capital of the Poles, Krakow - Lesser Poland, Lesser Poland Voivodeship (Polish Województwo małopolskie) and Greater Poland (Polish Wielkopolska), all lands that were part of Poland.
For the first time the term "Little Russia" occurs at the beginning of the 14th century in Byzantium to define the modern Western Ukrainian lands in church-administrative practice. The Galician Metropolis, established in 1303, covered six dioceses: Galician, Przemysl, Vladimir, Kholmsk, Lutsk and Turov (that is, also part of the territory of modern Belarus), which in Byzantine sources were called Little Russia (Greek Μικρά Ρωσία - Mikra Rosia ) as opposed to Great Russia (Μακρά Ρωσία - Makra Rosia), which from 1354 was understood as the territory of 19 dioceses under the rule of the Kiev Metropolitan, whose residence (seat) was from 1299-1300 in Vladimir, and from 1325-1461 in Moscow.
Prince of Galicia and Volhynia, King of Russia Yuri II Boleslav in a letter to the Grand Master of the German Order Dietrich, dated October 20, 1335, called himself “dux totius Rusiæ Minoris” (“Prince of All Little Russia”), although he and his predecessors called themselves "Rex Russiæ" ("King of Russia"), "Dux totius terræ Russiæ" ("Prince of all the Russian land"), "Dux et Dominus Russiæ" ("Prince and Ruler of Russia"). In the end, the names "Great Rus'" and "Little Rus'" came to the official level - the Patriarch of Constantinople established (1361) two metropolises, one in "Little Rus'" ("Mikra Rosia"), with a center in Novgorodka and Galich, the other in "Great Rus'", with the center in Kiev.
The Polish king Casimir the Great was called "the king of Lyakhia and Little Rus'", since he extended his power to a significant part of the possessions of Yuri Boleslav. According to the scheme of Mikhail Grushevsky, “Little Rus'” is the Galicia-Volyn state, and with its death, the entry of its lands into Poland and the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, this name “falls out of use”.
Hetmanate
Starting from the middle of the 17th century, the name Little Rus' was used in the church correspondence between Kyiv and Moscow. In the chronicles and on geographical maps, almost until the end of the 17th century, the Western Ukrainian lands were called Rus (Russia), Russian land (Ziemia Ruska) or Red Rus' (Russia Rubra). Contarini calls Lower Russia the lands where the cities of Lutsk, Zhytomyr, Belgorod (now the village of Belogorodka, 10 km from Kyiv) and Kyiv are located.
After the Treaty of Pereyaslav in 1654, the Russian tsar changed his title to "All the Great and Little Russia", to which, over time, the addition "White" was added. Since that time, the name Little Russia (Little Rus') also began to spread in government correspondence, chronicles and literature, in particular, it is used by Bogdan Khmelnitsky: “... The very capital of Kiev, also part of this Little Rus' of ours”, Ivan Sirko. The rector of the Kiev-Pechersk Monastery, Innokenty Gizel, in the Kiev Synopsis (1674) formulated the understanding of the Russian people as a triune people consisting of Great Russians, Little Russians and Belarusians, and state power The Moscow state in all three parts - Great, Little and White Rus' - is the only legal one, since the Moscow princes, and then the kings, descend from Alexander Nevsky, who "was the prince of Kiev from the Russian land, Alexander Yaroslavich Nevsky." The term "Little Russian Ukraine" appeared in 1677 [source not specified 845 days] and then took root in the hetman's office and chronicles. The terms "Little Russia" and "Little Russia" are used in the annals of Samuil Velichko, the chronograph according to the list of L. Bobolinsky, "Skarbnitsa" by Ivan Galyatovsky (1676).
However, on the geographical maps of the 18th century, published Russian Academy sciences in 1736-1738, and in the Russian Atlas of 1745 the name Little Russia is not found.
After the liquidation of the hetmanate in 1764, the Little Russian province with the administrative center in the city of Glukhov was created from a part of the Left-bank Ukraine. In 1775, the Little Russian and Kiev provinces were united, the provincial center was moved to Kyiv. In 1781, the Little Russian province was divided into three governorships (provinces) - Chernigov, Novgorod-Seversk and Kiev. In 1796, the Little Russian province was recreated, Chernigov was appointed the provincial center, after which it was divided again in 1802 into two provinces: Poltava and Chernigov. The names Little Russia, Little Russian, Little Russians were used in relation to the entire southwestern region during the 19th and early 20th centuries.
The name Little Russia until 1917 was semi-officially used for the collective designation of Volyn, Kyiv, Podolsk, Poltava, Kharkov and Chernigov provinces. That is how the Left-Bank Ukraine, mother and "Little Russia", was called Grigory Skovoroda, and Sloboda Ukraine - his own aunt, which indicated the absence of a pejorative connotation in the term "Little Russia".
Taras Shevchenko in his personal diary(for 1857-1858) uses the words "Little Russia / Little Russian" 17 times and only 4 times "Ukraine" (while he does not use the adjective "Ukrainian" at all); at the same time, in letters to like-minded Ukrainophiles 17 times “Ukraine” and 5 times “Little Russia / Little Russian”, and in his poetry he uses only the term “Ukraine”.
The cultural and historical specificity of Little Russia, as well as the regional patriotism of the Little Russians, were quite acceptable in the eyes of the supporters of the concept of a large Russian nation, as long as they did not come into conflict with this concept. Moreover, in the first half of the 19th century, Little Russian specificity aroused keen interest in St. Petersburg and Moscow as a more colorful, romantic version of Russianness.
The Ukrainian historian Mikhail Maksimovich in his work of 1868 refuted the myth that had formed in Polish historiography: attributing the name “Little Russia” to the Moscow state after 1654, dividing the Russian people into “Rus, Ruthenians and Muscovites”. Ukrainian historians Nikolai Kostomarov, Dmitry Bagalei, Vladimir Antonovich admitted that “Little Russia” or “South Rus'” during the struggle between the Moscow State and the Commonwealth was an ethnonym for the “Little Russian / South Russian” people, and “Ukraine” was used as a toponym denoting the outlying lands both states.

The story of how two blunders in imperial cartography helped define the new Ukraine. Its appearance on the political map in the twentieth century was the result of the actions of the Ukrainian national movement, which tried to "charge" the ethnographic mass of Little Russians with modernist ideology. This movement was not powerful or popular... until the time.

Historical geography is an interesting thing, and does it contain many intriguing themes. Some of them frankly destroy our modern stereotypes.

Old maps can reveal to us the goals of lost worlds. For example, there is such a thing as “creating countries”. Even states, I will note - countries.

Some things are a given for us: for example, the image of today's Ukraine on the map from the time of the official Soviet “Ukrainian SSR and Moldavian SSR”.

A hundred years ago, ideas about the space and borders of Russia, Poland or Ukraine were different and, despite their otherness, also very different. What we see on the map "Ukraine" was "Southern Russia" a hundred years ago, despite the fact that "Ukraine" was also found on this map - but much smaller than now.

"Moldavia" then was not at all where it is today, and you could argue with you about the existence of "Estonia" or "Latvia" then missing on the map.

Regarding the existence in the imagination of the human images of countries, states, civilizations, they usually go among the researchers of "mental cartography". I'm more interested in "real" cartography, which is what I'm talking about here.

Today, various authors devote their research to who, when and how in the world and Europe saw or perceived Ukraine and Ukrainian. This, of course, is interesting, but sometimes I have doubts: what the hell is some Mr. Smith, who lives in Devonshire, supposed to know something and even think about that Ukraine? For him, the county of Inverness is a “dark forest”. But he at least passed the county y British school.

And Herr Bauer somewhere in Württemberg must know about it? In his "mental cartography" even the people of Mecklenburg are usually blockheads. If he is interested in what it is (Ukraine and Ukrainians), then he will take a map and look.

If he knows what he wants, then he will look for the state or country on the political map, part of the state on the administrative map, the territory on the physical map, and the people on the ethnographic map. Something of the above, mixed together - on a common geographic.

This, in fact, is still limited to the methods of conventional visualization of distant spaces. Is that now you can also see a space image. This was the situation with “ordinary (not “mental”) cartography” one hundred and one hundred and fifty years ago.

Could Herr Bauer see Ukraine on a map in some 1850? Of course, it could, since the popular educational German atlases that were copied in half of Europe, the publishing houses of Eustace Perthes showed it on the map as part of "European Russia".

And could I see Ukrainians (albeit under the then name "Little Russians")? Could: in the same atlas on an ethnographic map. Moreover, the latter contained the latest information, since barely eight years had passed since Pavel Shafarik first showed the settlement of Little Russians on his ethno-lingual map "Slavic Lands".

True, at that time the spaces “Ukraine” and “Ukrainians-Little Russians” did not coincide in the imagination of European cartographers: the second was significantly larger than the first.

The reason was not that "Ukraine" was trying to somehow "humiliate". Just cartographers - the public is usually scrupulous, and in order to somehow name a space, grounds are needed. And the name "Ukraine", as we know, in the twentieth century. did not have a clear spatial definition, because according to the local exclusion of the Sloboda-Ukrainian province in 1765-1780 and 1797-1835. there never existed an administrative unit called "Ukraine" or "Ukrainians" inhabiting it.

Theoretically, if the ethnonym "Ukrainians" was then well-established, then there would be reason to consider "Ukraine" the habitat of Ukrainians, but the act of transition from "Rusynism" and "Little Russian" to "Ukrainian" took place only on turn of XIX-XX centuries as a consequence of the modern national project.

But if we asked some Mr. Ivanov from Ryazan to find "Ukraine" on the Russian map, then he, unlike a German or an Englishman, would not find it - because they did not write this word in Russian maps. Or he would have to look for her on historical maps showing the expansion of the Russian state in the XVI-XVII centuries. There really was "Ukraine", but until the XIX century. she "does not survive", dissolving in the Russian Empire.

Probably the only precedent for the presence of the toponym "Ukraine" on the Russian map of current realities is the map of Europe c. 1700, which is stored in the Moscow Armory. But this is explained by the fact that it was simply a copied French map by Guillaume Sanson. On the original map was the inscription "Ukraine - the country of the Cossacks." Here - "Ukraine country Cossack."

After this "trouble" on the actual Russian maps, the name "Ukraine" is never used. The ethnic diversity of the population of the empire contradicted the cross-cutting task of its unification, and here the graphic illusion also played its role. Therefore, the first official "Atlas of Russia" of 1745, which is also widespread in Europe, shows only the provinces (and, for example, the territory of the Hetmanate was formalized in 1775).

In Western cartography, the name "Ukraine" has been traditional since the middle of the 17th century. concerned the middle Dnieper region on both sides of the Dnieper. The century-old division of this territory between Russia and Poland had almost no effect on its “integrity”.

Peter, who promoted in Europe the renaming of Muscovy to Russia (identical in Western languages ​​to "Rus"), was completely satisfied with the term "Little Russia". Our ancestors, as we know, did not evoke negative associations at that time either.

On the map of the founder of the Navigational School, Yakov Bruce (the first Russian map distributed in Europe), this new toponym is indicated for the first time. It covers both the Right-bank Dnieper region and south-eastern Belarus, but in the future it spreads in Russian practice to the Left Bank, covering only the Hetmanate.

In Europe, they get used to Little Russia for a long time and it will be fixed on local maps only in a hundred years - perhaps with the introduction of the Little Russian Governor-General (1802-1835, Chernigov and Poltava provinces). Then it will be renamed, but Kharkiv region will be added to it, and the space of Little Russia in the regionalization of the Russian Empire will finally be fixed in these three provinces.

Educated Slobozhans then called themselves "Ukrainians", and the inhabitants of the former Hetmanate, somewhat disparagingly - "Little Russians".

But on the maps of the Kingdom of Poland in its section "Ukraine" it was written as the Right Bank, within the limits of Polish possessions. The left Russian bank remained for Little Russia. Polish cartography then significantly influenced Western European, primarily French.

These "wanderings" of Ukraine and Little Russia eventually led to the fact that in the middle of the XIX century. a kind of "hybrid" was formed on Western European maps. Two names were written in one contour - both "Ukraine" and "Little Russia", but it was more than the Russian idea of ​​\u200b\u200bLittle Russia, including also the right-bank Kyiv province.

This did not fit into the Russian "mental" - that is, administrative - cartography, since everything to the west of the Dnieper was perceived only as "former Poland". Therefore, Kyiv was part of the Western Territory, the Poles considered "emergence kresami".

The "Polish problem" obviously overshadowed the "Ukrainians" for the imperial administration. Actually, this can be considered the results of the “migrations” of Ukraine and Little Russia on maps before the violent upheavals of the 20th century.

But what caused the instant death of the 200-year-old toponym of Little Russia in 1917, after which it already (perhaps forever) disappears from the maps?

The first unconscious blunder of the imperial administration was the underestimation of the prospects for the “growth” of Little Russia on the entire ethnic area of ​​the Little Russians. Before that Little Russia got stuck in a narrow regional sense, never turning into the name of a country.

However, it is appropriate to ask: whose countries? What people? Since the imperial administration never thought that the political claims of the Little Russians would ever transform into real separatism, it did not offer any local alternative for the "country of the Little Russians" or any political and geographical project alternative to the Ukrainian one.

For example, to call the entire space of residence of the Little Russians from the Carpathians to the Caucasus "Little Russia". For my part, this, of course, is only a fantastic assumption, incompatible with the then realities of the empire.

The only possible “country” of the Little Russians was mother Russia, so no one contributed to (and, I suspect, did not even think about) that the Little Russians perceived as their emotional fatherland on all their lands not “Ukraine” (clearly associated with the “South Russian separatism "and" Mazepinism "), and for example -" Greater Little Russia from Xiang to Don ".

And they would have remained, perhaps, loyal Little Russians without renaming with a distinctly oppositional political connotation - in “Ukrainian”. Therefore, Little Russia never became a country, remaining a region

After all, answering the question “where do Little Russians live?” it was necessary to start a long list: in Little Russia, South- Western Territory, New Russia, Southern Russia, in Austrian Galicia, Bukovina and Subcarpathian Rus, in the Kuban, in the Uryankhai region, Canada, etc.

The “underconanism” of Little Russia is clearly seen in a simple statement in the corresponding volume of the Complete Geographical Description of Our Fatherland (1903): “Little Russia is the left-bank Ukraine.” Here's a nail for you...

And the “conscious Ukrainian” already had his own country, because he believed that all the lands where Ukrainians live are “Ukrainian lands”, and “Ukrainian lands” are the “country of Ukraine”. And what states it is a part of, this is of course important, but this is the second question. Poland was part of three empires, but it remained the “country of Poland”, despite all the retouching of the map by its owners.

The desire to “teach a lesson” to the rebellious Poles in the supposedly non-political field of ethnography led to another, he unconscious “miss” of imperial cartography.

According to the Russian authorities, “historical Poland”, to which the Polish separatists sought to return, obviously contained “primordially Russian lands”, therefore representatives of two tribes of the Russian people lived there - Little Russians and Belarusians. It was only the nobility in the Western Territory that was Polish.

If we clearly draw an ethnic boundary, it will be seen that "ethnic Poland" looks much less than "historical", and the claims of the latter look unfounded from the point of view of modern science. And it will be clear that most of the "historical Poland" is an obvious and undeniable Russia.

This is also indicative for us in terms of stating that the process of “drawing countries” is an interesting and unpredictable thing. On the size of Poland and Russia in the 19th century. one could make quite different assumptions ...

Who could carry out such a task, which, of course, was not formulated as a point in the "five-year plan", but was necessary in long term? Objectively, there were two performers for this mission, more interested in studying Russia and its borders - the Imperial Russian geographical society and the General Staff.

In 1851 Academician Peter Koeppen publishes the first map in Russia ethnic composition empire (“by tribal affiliation”), on which the Eastern Slavs are simply in white, the background, and only foreigners are indicated.

But more nuance was needed to make the distinction in Westfall. How to distinguish peoples? By denomination? Attempts were unsuccessful, because it turned out that not only Poles are Catholics. Self-identification? The state of education and ethnic identity in those parts was frankly neglected and confused. Even priests could identify themselves as "Chornorus" or "Buzhan".

We settled on the language criterion as the most reliable. Who speaks the Belarusian or Little Russian dialect - Russian, who Polish- Pole. For this, it was necessary to pay more attention to language in statistical studies. Academic scientists and military statisticians have been doing this for years.

And the gradual drawing of the ethno-linguistic border from west to east marked not only Poles, as we can guess, but also Belarusians and Little Russians.

The collection of information about the language (including "tribal dialects") in the course of the all-Russian statistical "revisions" (the predecessors of the census) made it possible in the 1860s-1870s to already have a clear idea of ​​the ethnic area of ​​the Little Russians within the Russian Empire, that is, most of that that will become the "country of Ukraine".

The results of this (ethnographic maps of Russia by the military and ethnographer Alexander Rittikh) from 1877 fall into the most widespread Russian educational atlas - the publisher A. Ilyin, close to the General Staff. And over the next forty years, every Russian schoolchild could simply learn about the space where the Little Russians lived, because the territorial claims of the Central Rada in 1917 could become some kind of “news” only for those who did not study well. And these “claims” could only be called “Ukraine”, and not “Little Russia”.

Of course, I did not try to prove here that the appearance newest Ukraine in 1917 is only the result of an underestimation of certain "ethnographic realities" by the Russian authorities of the 19th century, either scientists or the military. They just did their job well - but no one knows the future consequences of their actions.

Splash of Ukraine on political map in the twentieth century was first the result of the actions of the Ukrainian national movement, tried to "charge" the ethnographic mass of the Little Russians with modern national ideology. He was not, as we know, before the time powerful or too "popular", but in any case, his potential turned out to be frankly underestimated by the imperial authorities.

In this sense, perhaps, the Russian researcher of the “Ukrainian issue” Aleksey Miller was right when he wrote that this is not only a success story of the Ukrainian, but also a history of the failure of the empire. And the area of ​​hypotheses and disputes will remain the question: was this "success" or "failure" programmed.