Tsarist historiography justifies the annexation of territories inhabited by Ukrainians - the majority of the old Kievan Rus - through the act of union signed on 18 January 1654, in Pereyaslav, which was then a city within the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth.

Since then, Soviet historians, and now those in modern Russia, have repeatedly claimed that the "reunification" of the Russian (which de facto did not exist in the 17th century) and Ukrainian peoples was a benevolent choice of both parties.

The year 1654 is thus considered a cornerstone in the construction of the Russian Empire, in which the Ukrainians - and other occupied peoples - were seen at best as "younger brothers," but in reality, they were enslaved by the Muscovite elite, much like the peasants in the territories controlled by Moscow.

What did really happen in the winter of 1653-54? Why do Ukrainians and Russians treat this subject differently?

Anti-Polish rebellion

During that period, most of the territories of the former Kievan Rus were under the control of the medieval Commonwealth of Poland and Lithuania (Rzeczpospolita), which included present-day Belarus, Ukraine, Poland, and the modern-day Baltic republics.

Rzeczpospolita in the borders of 1569. Credit: Wikipedia

The role of nations other than Poles and Lithuanians in the governance of this elective monarchy was minor, as political autonomy was suppressed by the privileged nobility. Under these conditions, a Ukrainian hetman (warlord) Bogdan-Zinoviy Khmelnytsky, who managed to unite most Ukrainian Cossacks and mobilized Tatar troops from Crimea, raised a rebellion against the Commonwealth in 1648.

The Hetmanate (the state of Ukrainian Cossacks) declared itself independent from the Zaporozhian Host but was too weak to withstand the Polish-Lithuanian army. The Cossacks convened the Rada (the Grand Council) to approve a military alliance with the Tsardom of Moscow as equal political actors.

It should be noted that four major powers claimed control over the Hetmanate at that time – the Commonwealth, against which the Cossacks rebelled; the Ottoman Porte, which was foreign to the Ukrainians in terms of religion and culture; the Crimean Khanate, with which they had quarreled numerous times, and the Tsardom of Moscow, with which they shared the same religion and had common historical roots since the Kievan Rus.

Bogdan Khmelnytsky (left) and Muskovite Tsar Alexey Mikhailovich. Credit: Getty Images

Khmelnytsky chose Moscow, hoping that an alliance with the Tsar would help achieve either Cossack independence or at least significant autonomy within the Polish state. For this reason, some historians in Kyiv accuse him of betraying Ukrainian interests, while Moscow historians consider him a hero.
Given the complex socio-political context of that time, the debate on the role of the hetman is not settled to this day. 

Oaths of allegiance

What were the actual conditions of the treaty adopted by the Pereyaslav Rada? Information on this matter is contradictory and depends on the source of inspiration.

The Ukrainian version: According to the agreements between Bogdan Khmelnytsky and Tsar Alexey Mikhailovich – the second Moscow monarch of the Romanov dynasty – the Muscovites established a protectorate over the autonomous Cossack state in exchange for military assistance against the Poles.