determination of their national life, the citizens of the Ukrainian People’s Republic of
a certain nation formed the National Union – a state body that owned the state cadaster
of its own members and had the right to impose taxes on them [34].
Historian Dmytro Doroshenko, who served for several months as the Minister for
Foreign Affairs of the Ukrainian State, noted that this law created ‘some kind of state
in the state’. In his opinion, particular difficulties with the application of this legislative
act arose with respect to the Russian ethnos, since Russified Ukrainians and Russians
formed the majority in large cities, sharing all-Russian patriotism, aspirations, and they
assessed the limitation of Russian cultural influences as a general decline in culture. In
addition, it was difficult to separate these people into some certain nationality, since
today’s ‘Little Russian’ or ‘Russian’ could become a nationally conscious Ukrainian
in future [35].
In general, one must admit that the Law on National-Personal Autonomy could
create many problems for the state-building of Ukraine in future. In particular, it could
contribute to the national confrontation and separatism of individual territories. Yet P.
Skoropadsky built the Ukrainian State not according to the national but to the state-
territorial principle. And not only ethnic Ukrainian lands could be joined to Ukraine,
but also territories that had an important strategic geopolitical and economic
significance: the Crimea, Kuban, Bessarabia, some lands of the Belarusian People’s
Republic and the
Almighty Don Host
, etc. While building up Ukraine on a state-
territorial principle, he also aspired to unite Ukraine’s multinational people with
common local history, traditions, aspirations, peculiarities of life, etc. And still Hetman
inclined to use the great potential of officials, officers, bankers, industrialists,
landowners, scientific, cultural and educational public figures who were not conscious
Ukrainians, but could bring great benefits to the state reconstruction of Ukraine in new
realities. No wonder the Law on the Citizenship of the Ukrainian State contained much
wider provisions than the similar law of the Ukrainian People’s Republic. Namely it
proclaimed that all Russian subjects who were located in Ukraine at the time of
publication of this Law, were recognized as citizens of the Ukrainian State [36].
CONCLUSION
Hetman’s regime turned to be more and more reactionary and anti-Ukrainian. A
decisive and carefree restoration of the old pre-revolutionary system was underway,
both in social and national terms. All Ukrainian was taken into suspicion. The
administrations in the center and the local ones were selected from reactionary Russian
elements… Judging by the mood that prevailed even among the Hetman’s
administration, it was evident that the end of the Hetmanate was near [37].
Hetman’s social and economic politics as well as his endeavors of consensus with
White Movement supporters, which was reflected in the
Letter of the Federation with
- 1209 -