№4 / 2017

Nagirny-Karabakh, Khojaly genocide

Parvana Telman kizi Rustamova


The article examines political and legal aspects of the Armenian-Azerbaijani conflict over the territory of Karabakh and surrounding districts, describe the causes and consequences of the Khojaly genocide that Armenians committed during the conflict as a tragedy and crime of the XX century in the former Soviet Union.

Key words: Khojaly genocide, Karabakh, Armenian-Azerbaijani conflict, the resolutions of the Security Council of the UN, OIC.

Khojaly genocide is a tragedy of XX century. Azerbaijani people over two hundred years have witnessed the policy of ethnic cleansing and genocide that implement the Armenian nationalist-chauvinists.

Committing violence against innocent people, Armenians resorted to acts of terror. Why Khojaly was their purpose? Khojaly is located about 10 km southeast of Xankandi mountain ridge on Karabakh. The occupation of Khojaly Armenians considered strategically important step that involved the destruction of the dominant population, such as ethnic Azeri Turks, who lived in Nagirny-Karabakh. Armenians would wipe out an entire city. Khojaly always been a center of cultural and historical heritage of the Azerbaijani people. [1] Later the Armenian side admitted that their goal was the destruction of Khojaly bridgehead, the release of the road askeran – Xankandi and hobbies airport.

Since October 1991 Khojaly got into blockade. All roads into the city were closed, so the only vehicle served as a helicopter.  January 28, 1992 over the city Shusha was shot down a civilian helicopter. It was killed 40 people and communication with witnesses were cut off. The city defended by volunteers and local police. February 26, 1992 Armenian troops committed mass repression and massacres in the city Khojaly (Azerbaijan) with 7 thousand people. As a result, 613 people died, about a thousand became invalids, 1275 – were in captivity, including the elderly, children, women who have experienced incomprehensible suffering, insults and humiliation. The fate of 150 people is still unknown. The city was in a blockade during four months, so most of the people among whom dominated by Azerbaijanis, was forced to leave the area.

Azerbaijan was not ready for war, internal political instability and weak information policy, Russian assistance to Armenians – all this led to a loss. This crime must not remain without punishment.

Despite the fact that Security Council resolutions are legally binding and require withdrawal of Armenian armed forces from the territory of Nagorno-Karabakh and surrounding areas, they are not implemented unilaterally. Armenia ignores international law and has the status of an aggressor. The project “Justice Khojaly” world learned of the crime in Khojaly and events in Nagirny-Karabakh.

Unfortunately, today there is not adopted new international instruments to combat the genocide but remain applicable provisions of the Rome Statute and conventions. Genocide is a crime recognized by international law. Genocide is a manifestation of aggression, where participants stand people or the state. This is the highest measure of injustice during which leveled all moral and human principles of humanity. Genocide Convention indicates the object of the crime – it acts as a national, ethnical, racial or religious group. Armenians committed with the intent of the crime, killing women and children only because of their national, ethnic and religious affiliation.

Defense Minister in the illegal regime of Nagirny-Karabakh  Ohanyan Mishehovich   participated in the attack. He led the 366 regiment combined forces of the CIS. The Azerbaijani side has every right to file a complaint with the International Court of Justice against Armenia and Karabakh representatives of the illegal regime for genocide according to the Genocide Convention 1948.

The report of the independent observers of the organization “Memorial”, who visited the conflict zone, states: “Residents of the city left their homes and could not even take your required minimum of their property. As noted by witnesses, prisoners were beaten men, underage girls were subjected to acts of violence. Chief of Armenian Military Service Major Khachaturyan prohibited communicating with prisoners alone – at least for a few minutes. Four dead Azerbaijanis in Agdam (Azerbaijan) had scalped bodies [2].

The first international parliamentary organizations which recognize Khojaly events as a crime against humanity was the Islamic Cooperation Organization – 51 states [3].

The position of the UN Security Council in conflict on Nagirny-Karabakh and 7 surrounding regions are defined in its four resolutions (822, 853, 874, 884), which were signed during the war – from April 30 to November 12, 1993. It is known that Security Council resolution UN must be carried out on time. Unfortunately, in difficult negotiations, each party tries to implement only the position that is beneficial for them.

Azerbaijan demands that Armenia follow the steps in the resolution provisions on the withdrawal of the occupying forces from seven regions of Azerbaijan and return of refugees there. Even if Nagirny-Karabakh is a disputed territory between the parties, the seven districts, no doubt, is occupied. Therefore, Azerbaijan needs to determine the status of Nagorno-Karabakh by the international community. Adequate interpretation of the text of the resolutions, according to former diplomat Vladimir Kazimirov, not possible, since these documents were adopted in the very midst of war. Obviously, the primary requirement was a ceasefire of hostilities and hostile acts. All four resolutions mentioned about it. Despite the fact that the first resolution was adopted on 30 April 1993, the situation worsened, grew flow of refugees and immigrants.

UNSCR on Nagirny-Karabakh

The first UN Security Council resolution on the Armenian-Azerbaijani conflict, “UN Security Council Resolution number 822” was adopted on 30 April 1993. It stated: “Stability and security in the region under threat,” expressed strong concern about the increasing flow of refugees and forcibly displaced. UN Security Council called for a cease-fire by suspending occupation and military operations, demanded the withdrawal of troops from the occupied lands. Next – «UN Security Council Resolution №853» adopted on 29 July 1993 and included the withdrawal of troops from the occupied Ahdamsk  area of the Republic of Azerbaijan. Third resolution №874 UN Security Council adopted a prepared Minsk Group “updated timetable of urgent steps” and said the possibility of reaching a settlement of the conflict based on the plan. In November 1993, adopted a fourth UN Security Council resolution №884, which expressed concern about the occupation Zenhilansky region of Azerbaijan. The UN Security Council expressed its concern about the deterioration of relations between Armenia and Azerbaijan. Security Council urged the Government of Armenia to use its influence to ensure compliance Armenian Nagorno-Karabakh region Resolutions (№822, №853). The Council condemned the attacks on the regions of Azerbaijan invasion Ahdamsky, Fizulinsky and Kelbedzharsky areas, demanded immediate cessation of hostilities. [4]

Priority Action Plan for the implementation of Resolution № 822 (1993) UN Security Council has developed nine countries of the Minsk Group. Both parties support the plan and showed their initiative for its rapid implementation. In a letter to the Permanent Representative of Italy to the UN F. Fulci on July 28, 1993 the UN Security Council said: “The position of the local Armenian community leaders who are guided more military than diplomatic character was tougher. Interests Ahdamskoho area can not be justified even in terms of self-defense” [5].

The work of the OSCE Minsk Group often criticized by analysts as Armenia and Azerbaijan. Experts believe that the Minsk Group is not engaged in resolving the Nagirny-Karabakh conflict and its tightening. The violation of ceasefire increasing number of victims and wounded, not only among soldiers but also among civilians living near the border. Minsk Group does not meet the political interests of the parties. This is due to the policy of co-chairs – the US, Russia, France officially announced its position on this issue and do not show consistency in resolving the conflict.

The position of the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation

Organization of Islamic Cooperation (conference) was established in 1969 based on the “Forum of Islamic Conference”. In the Muslim world, the organization was presented as a central body uniting all Islamic states for close cooperation in order to influence events of world importance. This international intergovernmental association with significant potential and an example of integration on the basis of religion in international conflicts, acts only on the side of Muslims. From 1975 it received the status of observer at the United Nations. [6] In 1991 OIS delegation arrived in Azerbaijan to study the possibilities of peacefully resolving the Armenian-Azerbaijani conflict. Discussions were held with representatives of the UN, Armenia, Turkey and Russia. In the XXI meeting of foreign ministers OIS in 1993 in Karachi adopted a resolution [7], which has been strongly condemned the actions of Armenia, calling for the withdrawal of armed forces from the occupied lands and the peaceful resolution of the conflict. Resolution 1994 was adopted in Morocco, states: “Member States call for compliance with UN Security Council resolutions adopted in particular provisions for the territorial integrity and sovereignty. Member States shall require a UN Security Council recognition of aggression against Azerbaijan, to take appropriate measures in accordance with Chapter XII of the UN Charter to ensure compliance with resolutions. Purchased land by force can not be recognized “[8]. The next resolution “On aggression of Armenia regarding Azerbaijan” was adopted in 1996 in Jakarta. Almost all political resolutions of the condemned one party to the conflict – Armenia. This determines the position of the OIS on the Nagirny-Karabakh problem. In 2007, the General Secretariat condemned the presidential elections in Nagirny Karabakh as an unlawful decision, one that does not meet the norms and principles of international law. Professor E. Ihsanohly said that this action has no legal consequences. OIS is the first international organization condemned the actions of Armenia and expressed support for the territorial integrity of Azerbaijan. [9]

Thus, the Azerbaijani-Armenian conflict over the territory of Nagirny-Karabakh is not solved problem in the post-soviet period. The reason is that the war is not completed, despite the international instruments that provide for a ceasefire. One of the most tragic pages of the conflict was Khojaly genocide, which claimed the lives of many innocent people. Today the commission of the crime has been 25 years. But still conflicting parties fail to reach a compromise, despite international legal efforts by States and international intergovernmental organizations. Despite this, the Azerbaijani people, strong in spirit, never relinquish their land.


1. Xocalı – 1992.Heydər Əliyev İrsini Araşdırma Mərkəzi. Məsləhətçi: Asəf Nadirov. Baki – 2014. С.56

2. Report of the Human Rights Center “Memorial” on the massive violations of human rights related to the occupation of the settlement of Khodjaly on the night of February 25-26, 1992 by the armed formations. [Electronic resource]. Access mode: http://www.memo.ru

3. N. Samedoglu. The Khojaly massacre is a crime against humanity. Newspaper Mirror. 02.02.2010. [Electronic resource]. Access mode: http://archive.is/9H3yb

4. United Nations Security Council. Note by the President of the Security Council. Distr.General. S/26326. 18.08.1993. P.1. [Електронний ресурс]. Режим доступу: www.un.org.doc.

5. Letter dated 28 July 1993 from the Permanent Representative of Italy to the United Nations addressed to the President of the Security Council. UN. Security Council. S / 26184. 07/28/1993. [Electronic resource]. Access mode: www.un.org.doc.

6. Sheryazdanova K., Smagulova D., Integration institutes: from the organization of the Islamic Conference to the organization of Islamic cooperation. Articles – EEI – No. 2 (May 19) 2013. – P.84.

7. Organization of Islamic Cooperation//Final Communiqué//21ST Conference of the foreign ministers Karachi, Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 4-8 Zul Qa’dah 1413H, 25 – 29 April 1993. [Електронний ресурс]. Режим доступу: http://www.oic-oci.org.

8. Organization of Islamic Cooperation//On the conflict Armenia and Azerbaijan//Resolution No. 11/22-P. [Електронний ресурс]. Режим доступу: http://www.oicoci.org.

9. Organization of Islamic Cooperation //The OIC Secretary General rejects the So-called «Presidential elections» in Nagorno – Karabakh. 19/07/2007. [Електронний ресурс]. Режим доступу: www.oic-oci.org.

American values in inaugural speeches of Barack Obama and Donald Trump

Iryna Golubovska, Tetyana Orlova


The article analyzes the inauguration speeches of USA Presidents Barak Obama and Donald Trump from the point of positioning American traditional values in the changing country and the world, and follows the reflection of moral guides in the policies of the 44th and 45th masters of the White House.

Keywords: President, inauguration speech, values, traditions, novelties, “soft power”.

Values are essential for the existence of both the individual and society. One of the founders of American theoretical sociology T. Parsons described the value as a standard by which performance targets are selected and important function is to support and preserve the sample. Shared values and mutual orientation of individuals determines their ability to social action. The value system, according to the scientist, defines originality society [1].

American society is very peculiar, because people realized the unique historical experiment by creating a new powerful state with almost nothing. US history is very interesting in terms of synergy – the science of self-organization. The American nation was formed as an experiment in self-government. This means self: personal, economic, social and political. But this self-regulation focused on certain values. Many of the ideals of American society rooted beliefs and history of the country. For example, individualism, the belief that hard work can improve the fate of each; desire to rely on their own strength – examples of traditional American values since the first settlers. It were the Europeans who lacked opportunities for self-fulfillment at home. The reasons were different.

Among those who tried to find better luck overseas, initially dominated by adherents of the Protestant faith. No wonder the typical American long defined as WASP – White Anglo-Saxon, Protestant. Protestantism was one of the elements of structure-that is the basis of the emergence of American values. Among them – religious faith (in terms of freedom of conscience and the absence of a state religion), unqualified patriotism, respect for economic and political authority, self-discipline combined with initiative. As part of the American philosophy from the beginning was the Puritan doctrine of vocation, which means serving God thought diligence, brought the practical value of success in life (chosen by God as a sign and promise of salvation).

The former director of the US Information Agency L.R. Kols in his book “Values ​​which Americans live” determined core values: equality, egalitarianism, individualism and privacy, competitiveness and free enterprise, job orientation, informality, practicality and efficiency, materialism [2]. Another value is the focus on success and optimism, focus on the future – so-called “American Dream.” Its meaning: America is a country of unlimited opportunities and open society where everyone, regardless of social status and origin, can succeed based on their own.

The US Constitution enshrines the values ​​of freedom, equality and democracy. American constitutionalism is unique in its insistence on individual rights, decentralization and public authorities. [3] However, keep in mind that among the immigrants to North America from the very beginning and further people was varied. Therefore, usually among American cartoons was common image of Liberty, which held in the wake of two terrible dogs. In one collar was written “law” and the second – “Procedure”. The legality and respect for the law complements the list of liberal democratic principles of democracy, freedom, human rights are the coordinate system for the United States from the foundation to the present.

The first American President George Washington in 1789 laid the tradition that is maintained to this day. Traditionally every inaugural address President defines national priorities and inspires the American people. These speeches, especially in the twentieth century. Listen with particular attention not only in America but also in other countries. For the US, the State of which depends largely on the situation in the world. And the most important politicians in the world is considered to be the American president.

The US emblem says: «E pluribus unum» – «United in diversity”. In his speech, Obama said: “… we know that our diverse heritage – it is an advantage, not a disadvantage. We – a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus, and atheists. Our nation was formed in all languages ​​and all cultures that have come to us from every corner of the Earth” [4]. And he and his successor – the descendants of immigrants from other continents. However, the figure of Barack Obama – more symbolic. Before his first inaugural address British journalist H. Rachman in the Financial Times called him “a man of character,” which inspires people not ideas, but his personality. [5]

Obama is a great speaker. His speeches, inaugural and others, comply with one of the leading American values, namely composure and self-confidence. Moreover, the first time he became president in times of severe financial crisis that begun in the US, later covered the whole world. Going to the polls, Obama formulated the slogan «Yes, we can», which was to inspire the audience and unite the population. By taking the presidential oath for the first time, he said: “Now it is clear that we are at the center of crisis … Today I say to you that the challenges before us are real. They are serious and numerous. Easily and quickly to overcome them is fail. But know, America, we can handle them!” [5]. In this phrase manifest one’s favorite values ​​Americans – optimism.

Remembering their predecessors, the 44th US president said that they had to swear under conditions “when clouds gathered and a storm roared. At these moments, America has continued to move forward – not only because of the experience and vision of those in power, but because, we, the people, kept the commitment to the ideals of our ancestors and loyalty to our fundamental document” [5].

In determining the values ​​on which is the success of America, Obama emphasized hard work and honesty, courage and willingness to play by the rules, tolerance and curiosity, loyalty and patriotism. Calling “meet, shake off the dust and then start working on updating America”, the new president has indicated that it should be done: “The state of the economy calls for action – bold and swift action. And we will act – not only to create new jobs, but also to lay the foundation for a new development (innovations – one of the favorite American values). We will build the roads and bridges (American values ​​- mobility, no wonder the American civilization is called automotive), power lines and digital communication that feed our commerce and bind us together. We will restore science the place that belongs to it by right (very high place science meets the values ​​of rationalism and pragmatism of Americans.). We possess wonders of technology to improve the quality of health care and reduce the cost of it (anthropocentrism or American individualism). We conquer the sun, wind and earth to give fuel our cars and run our factories (materialism Americans.). We will transform our schools, colleges, and universities to meet the demands of modern times. We can all do it. And we will do it” [5].

In his speech, Obama reminded the audience the promise made by God: “… all are equal, all are free and all deserve the right to get a chance to fully happiness” (these words show values ​​of equality and freedom). Without denying market opportunities to create wealth and expand freedom, the new president stated that the crisis has reminded: “… without a watchful eye the market can spin out of control – and that a country cannot doing well if it only cares about successful. The success of our economy has always depended not just on the amount of our gross domestic product, but on the reach of our borders prosperity, on our ability to give everyone the chance – not through charity, but because it is the surest way to our common good” [5]. In this phrase President intends to pay more attention to social policy, support socially vulnerable population and mostly voted for him in 2008 and 2012.

However, he said: “We now need to start a new era of responsibility and realize – realize all Americans – that we also have obligations, ourselves, facing our country and the world.” In foreign policy pursued for two terms Obama, the brightest were several trends.

The first – efforts to continue to liberal globalization model. In particular, he declared: “Our founding fathers that face-to-face faced with such disasters and dangers that it is hard to imagine Charter were to assert the rule of law and human rights charter, which was of blood of generations. Those ideals still shine the world, and we will not give them for instant benefits. So we say other peoples and states are now looking at us – from the grandest capitals to the small village where he was born, my father know that America – a friend of all nations, of all men, women and children who want to live in dignity in the world; know that we are again ready to go ahead” [5].

The second trend, stating that “… our world has changed and we must change with it,” Obama outlined the importance in US foreign policy concept of “soft power”: “Recall that earlier generations opposed fascism and communism not just with missiles and tanks, but with the help of strong alliances and enduring convictions. They understood that we can not defend yourself only one power and that this power does not entitle us to do anything. They knew that our power increases, if used wisely and prudently; our security based on justice of our cause, the force of our example, the solid virtues of humility and restraint” [5].

The third trend: the desire to embody the values ​​of “moderation and humility”: “We will be a responsibility to go out of Iraq, transferring it into the hands of the Iraqi people and strengthen peace in Afghanistan … we will work to reduce the nuclear threat … We do not ask forgiveness for our life, we will without any doubt defend it. And those who try to achieve their goals, spreading fear and mercilessly killing any innocent people, we say our spirit becomes stronger and can not break; you can not outlive us, and we will defeat you.”

The fourth trend analysts have defined as an attempt not to make any “sudden movements” and his foreign policy doctrine: “do not do the obvious nonsense» (do not do a stupid shit) [6]. In assessing the foreign policy of the forty-fourth president, many international observers, including the US, reproached him for weakness, especially in comparison with Russian President Vladimir Putin. In particular, Ukraine expect more from America in its opposition to the aggressive course of the Kremlin, intensified by the end of 2013 weak US response to events in Georgia and Ukraine only increased boldness of the Russian president.

The second inaugural address bit in another interpretation heard the words of loyalty to traditional American values ​​that unite the nation, Americans make “special”. In particular, the commitment to the ideas expressed in the Declaration adopted 200 years ago: “We recognize the truth that all men are created equal, that their Creator has given certain inherent to all rights, among them – the right to life, liberty and the right to search their way to happiness.” It was also announced that “… the task of our generation – to make these words, these values, these rights – to life, liberty, to achieve happiness – a reality for every American” [7].

Just as in the first speech by defining the priorities of economic development (a good way, trade schools and universities, etc.), Obama said on helping the most vulnerable people, “to avert horrible disaster in their lives.” However, it was slightly changed emphasis on social policy: “… we do not believe that the state alone can solve all the problems of society. We appreciate the initiative and enterprise (favorite real values ​​of Americans.), we are working very hard, we have a personal responsibility (responsibility – the flip side, called “freedom”) for everything that we do – our national traits.” But at the same time: “We understand that no matter how responsibly we do not treat our lives, each of us, at any time may face a job loss or a sudden illness, or a terrible hurricane that destroys our house. And the commitment that we take through the social security system, not weaken us, we do not weaken the will to win, and vice versa – strengthen us” [7].

The second inaugural address, Barack Obama repeatedly repeated the words “We, the people, understand …” and “We, the people, believe …” Of course, such “figures” are intended to strengthen the call for unification. This stated: “… when the times change, and we change; commitment to our fundamental principles requires new responses to the challenges; protect our individual freedoms ultimately requires joint action” [7].

In his second speech, Obama stressed the positive: “A decade of war is ending. Economic recovery began.” Given that “endless possibilities of America,” the president pointed out new qualities needed in today’s world without borders (i.e. globalized). This – “youth and vitality, diversity and openness, ability to take risks.” In fact, these features are characteristic of the American national character. Speakers stressed the need to rely more on such values ​​as innovation focus: “We have to create new ideas, new technologies to restructure our government, our tax system, modernize our schools, to give our citizens the skills they need so they can work harder, learn new things, to reach new heights” [7]. Obama declared: “We believe that the foundation of America – people middle class.” But for decades it is this layer showed a downward trend from 1971 to 2015 the number of adult Americans who consider themselves middle class, decreased from 61% to 50% [8], and, in general, socio-economic situation in the US has deteriorated.

Donald Trump experienced a change in the country. As Ukrainian observers B. Yaremenko and O. Bielokolos point: “Trump phenomenon was the fact that he could feel the good mood of a significant number of white Americans who belong to the working class, working in the real economy, not like immigrants, in favor of preserving Christian heritage of America do not trust Washington establishment and fear of Islam.” During the period 2002-2015 number of Americans who believed that their country power belongs to the people dropped from 44% to 23% [8].

January 20, 2017 D. Trump – 45th President of the United States of America – swore allegiance to the people. Almost immediately, he said: “Today’s ceremony is particularly important because today we do not simply transfer power from one administration to another or from one party to another – we transfer power from Washington, DC, and return you to the people. A small group of long time in the capital enjoyed all the bonuses, and people pay for this cost. Washington bloomed, but not shared with his people wealth. Flourished policy, but reduced jobs and closed plants. Higher classes defended themselves, and not the citizens of our country … This will change from this day … the United States of America – your country”. [9]

This tirade is extremely dramatic: the power returns to the people “right there and right now.” Revolution without a revolution? Billionaire stood up for ordinary workers, “We have spent trillions of dollars overseas, while America’s infrastructure breaks apart. We have enriched other countries; however, wealth, power and confidence in our country crumbled and disappeared over the horizon. One by one, closed factories. They do not even think about the millions and millions of American workers who lost their jobs. The richness of our middle class disappeared and then was redistributed around the world. But in the past. Now we look to the future (the future orientation – American value) … On the same day will be a new strategy that will drive our country. From that day to America first. America – especially! Every decision on trade, taxes, immigration, foreign affairs will be made for the benefit of American workers and American families. We must protect our borders from other countries steal our companies and destroying our jobs.” [9] Undeniably, some American voters believe in the entrepreneurial talent D. Trump, as supporting American values ​​of pragmatism, materialism and entrepreneurship.

In pronouncing two rules: “Buy American and hire Americans” was showed awareness of the new president the request for public protection. Director of the Asian Department of the Berlin Foundation for Science and Policy G.G. Hilpert saw this problem redistribution of welfare in the United States. America as a whole has benefited from globalization. The liberalization of world trade has enriched Wall Street and Silicon Valley, shareholders globally operating corporations, urban residents on both ocean coast. But politicians have made sure that enough to feel the welfare of workers and the middle class in the center of the country. Now those who are lost, bet on protectionism. [10] And the one who advances it.

The new president stressed commitment to freedom and equality, “We all have the same freedom and respect the American flag. When children are born – in Detroit or Nebraska – they are looking at the same stars and dreaming of the same thing. And they are living the same Almighty Creator” [9].

It should be noted that, in comparison with the inaugural address of his predecessor, the 45th US president delivered his speech less time, but more often than in the two speeches of Barack Obama combined, mentioned God. Religiosity is one of American values. But as it turned out, during Barack Obama, they have become less “valuable” and felt that the new owner of the White House. Weakening values ​​always upsets people minded conservative. The Republican Party, whose candidate D. Trump appeared, based on the support of the conservative Christian population of America.

It is believed that God determined the fate of the American people – the way climbing higher and higher civilization to triumph example for all the peoples of the world. Americans call it «Manifest Destiny». For a long time the idea was the epitome of the policy of “objection to democracy of the world”, even if they do not ask. J. Trump uttered: “We want to establish good relations with other countries. But the right of every nation – care primarily about their own interest. We do not want to impose our way of life to anyone. But let it shine we’ll shine – and everyone can take our example “. [9] In the last sentence – transformed the idea of ​​”soft power” that was present in Barack Obama. In a speech heard: “We will strengthen old alliances and build new alliances. We combine the civilized world against radical Islamic terrorists.” But then: “We will destroy them completely, wipe from the face of the earth” [9]. It is not “soft power.”

In both speeches of Barack Obama and D. Trump in one form or another there is the idea of ​​national exclusiveness America, but in reality, this idea came into conflict with the concept of American internationalism. On the one hand, the latter focuses on greater openness to the outside world, in particular to facilitate the influx of the most capable and talented worldwide. In addition, American exceptionalism dictates distancing the country from other countries. Position D. Trump is known to be manifested in campaign promise to conduct tougher line regarding immigrants (and how “American Dream”?). In his inaugural speech, he stressed not, but soon announced the construction of a wall on the border with Mexico, to restrict access to migrants from countries with terrorist threat, narrowing opportunities for rapid granting citizenship to foreign programmers and others. Pre-election promises to review trade agreements and regimes already started to be made January 23, 2017 when a new US president has decided to withdraw his country from the Trans-Pacific Partnership treaty. In today’s globalized world attempts to solve by means of protectionist barriers the problems of the American economy will inevitably cause a global response shaft that eventually hurt profits and interests is American manufacturers, exporters and investors.

In general, the United States can not simply distance himself from an international perspective, because it means a great power demonstration of weakness and lead to negative consequences. One of the first will be a rapid erosion control regimes on weapons of mass destruction and their means of delivery. This has created a direct threat to US security. Failure Barack Obama administration to resist Russian aggression has meant that one of the important achievements of the nuclear age – the contract US and the USSR of 1987 on the elimination of intermediate and short range – was violated by Moscow (in 2014, Russia had prepared two battalions equipped with cruise missiles prohibited). In mid-February 2017, a group of American legislators drafted a law that will allow the United States to begin developing similar missile systems beyond the contractual limits.

Thus, Moto of D. Trump «Make America Great Again» (it used to Presidents Reagan and Clinton) should earn not only for “internal” use, but also for “external.” And the world will be witness of its realization.


1. Parsons T. On the structure of social action / Tolcott Parsons / Trans. With the English. – 2 nd ed. – Moscow: Academic Project, 2000. – P. 880.

2.​ Kohls L.R. The Values Americans Live By /Robert L.Kohls [Electronic resource] – Mode of access: http: //www.uri.edu/mind/VALUES2.pdf

3.​ Schuck P.H. Understanding America: The Anatomy of an Exeptional Nation /Peter H. Schuck [Electronic resource] – Mode of access: http: //www.law.yale.edu.news/6883.htm

4.​ Obama Inaugural Address 20th January 2009[Electronic resource] – Mode of access: http://obamaspeeches.com/

5. Rahman G. Obama – man-symbol / Gideon Rahman [Electronic resource]. – Access mode: http://inosmi.ru/world/20090120/246812.html

6. B. Yaaremenko Dyplobamatiya / Bohdan Yaremenko // Mirror week. – 2016 – 18 March [electronic resource] – Access: http://gazeta.dt.ua/internal/diplobamatiya-_.html

7.​ Inaugural Address by President Barack Obama[Electronic resource] – Mode of access: https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-office/2013/01/21/inaugural-address-president-barack-obama

8. B. Yaaremenko US presidential election: how was incredible, and what to expect Ukraine? / B. Yaremenko O. Bielokolos // Mirror week. – 2016 – November 12 [electronic resource] – Access: http://gazeta.dt.ua/internal/vibori-prezidenta-ssha-yak-stalosya-neymovirne-i-chogo-ochikuvati-ukrayini-_.html

9. Complete Donald Trump’s speech at the inauguration: the text [electronic resource] – Access: http://ukr.segodnya.ua/world/polnaya-rech-donalda-trampa-na-inauguracii-tekst-790326.html

10. The way out of the TTP – the economic and geopolitical defeat of America [Electronic resource] – Access mode: https://www.facenews.ua/news/2017/348109/

Ukraine-Israeli relations (2014-2016)

Sergiy Davydchuk


This article highlights the policy that some other aspects of Ukraine-Israeli relations after the events EuroMaidan and change of power in Ukraine in the beginning 2014.

Keywords: Ukraine-Israeli relations, problems, new aspects of the relationship.

EuroMaidan events, escape of Yanukovych, the annexation of the Crimea and the Russian-Ukrainian confrontation in the Donetsk and Lugansk regions have dramatically changed the vector of internal and external policy of Ukraine opened a new page in its recent history. So how these factors affected the Ukraine-Israeli relations?

Note that Israel clearly took a neutral position in the Russian-Ukrainian confrontation. At the official level Foreign Ministry has never expressed support for one party or another. Turbulent events in 2014, severe territorial losses, beginning of military operations in the east adversely affected the Ukrainian-Israeli relations. Coordinator of interparliamentary cooperation of the Knesset Robert Ilatov said in comments to journalists Jewish publications Ukraine E. Groisman that designated co froze, waiting for Israel and its renewal [1]. However, December 9, 2015 after meeting Parliament Speaker of Ukraine Vladimir Groisman with a delegation of Knesset, headed by Deputy Speaker Meir Cohen Parliamentary press service, among other things, said the desire of Ukraine to resume cooperation [2].

An important issue of bilateral relations was related to Israel’s annexation of Crimea. Russia annexed the peninsula in March 2014. March 27 the UN General Assembly condemned the action and expressed support for the territorial integrity of Ukraine. However, Israel did not attend the meeting because of the strike of employees of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. In May 2013 in Crimea opened its first Honorary Consulate of Israel in Ukraine (especially for the 65th anniversary of the State of Israel). But the events of 2014 have made adjustments to the foreign policy activity. In December 2014 the Embassy was closed (its head Yan Epstein expressed support for cooperation with Israel occupied the peninsula). In January 2016, the Embassy of Ukraine in Israel formally complained on numerous instances of entry of Israelis to Crimea via Ukraine will not (without authorization Ukrainian side). In response, Israeli Foreign Ministry on April 13 issued a clarification that such actions are illegal. [3] In February 2016, visited the Crimea member of the Knesset from Shas Party (religious orthodoxy) Yakiv Margi – to help the Jewish community in renovating the school. This MP – at the insistence of the Russian government – made a “courtesy visit” to the occupied peninsula leader of S. Aksenov. However, he apologized that he did not agree  his voyage with the authorities of Ukraine [3]. Israeli officials, according to the Ambassador in Ukraine E. Bilotserkivskyi, constantly warn Israeli companies work on the risk breakaway territory.

Still important is the question of historical memory between the two countries. Aspects of collaboration and complicity in some Ukrainian Holocaust during the Second World War, the status “Righteous among the Nations” Metropolitan A. Sheptytsky etc. are not lost over time its relevance. President of Ukraine Victor Yushchenko in his time started regular forum “Dialogue of truth for the Future” for a transparent discussion of sensitive points in the past. In September 2014 the Ukrainian Catholic University also held a mini-course “Ukrainian-Jewish coexistence in historical perspective: Selected Issues” with historians of both countries. Lectures in Jewish Studies within the program read the famous historian, professor of the university and Professor J. Hrycak Hebrew University Semon Goldin. They touched on Ukrainian-Jewish relations XVII-XX centuries, including – religious complex relationships times Khmelnytsky and display the latest developments in the historical memory of the two peoples, Jewish pogroms in the Russian and Austro-Hungarian empires reason pogroms in 1941, the ratio to their battalion “Nachtigall” mass executions at Babi Yar, A. Sheptytsky and Righteous world, the revival of Jewish communities in independent Ukraine.

An indicator of the development of bilateral relations can be considered Ukraine-Israeli consultations at the MFA of both countries in November 2014. Their subjects – a free trade area between states, the approval of bilateral visits areas of cooperation. The range is quite wide of the agreements – extension of the legal base of relations, coordination of cooperation in international organizations and plans to hold political consultations in 2014-2015, the expansion of cultural cooperation, promoting Israeli assistance in promoting psychologists who treat post-traumatic syndrome.

Honorary Consulate of Israel in Ukraine was opened May 28 – the first in the Western Ukraine. The opening ceremony was attended by MPs of Ukraine and Israel Knesset, public and political figures, representatives of the clergy, the Jewish community, the press – only about 200 people. Ambassador of Israel to Ukraine Eliab Bilotserkivskiy called the event a joint holiday in the life of Ukrainian and Jewish peoples.

There are known facts about treated in Israel affected by the events of EuroMaidan and fighters ATO in eastern Ukraine. Already April 22, 2014 Embassy of Ukraine in the State of Israel has expressed gratitude to all who helped treat victims. During a telephone conversation with Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu B. July 23, 2015 President of Ukraine Poroshenko expressed appreciation for Israeli professionals treat Hope Police Captain Smith, who suffered from explosions in. The head of Israel promised to do everything possible to rescue the Ukrainian [4].

An important fact – in December 2014, Israeli medics together with experts from the World Health Organization started practical work to improve the quality of Ukrainian medicine. In our country came coordinator of emergency response “Magen David atom” Haim Rafalovskyy and nurse of the Israeli Ministry of Health Shoshana Ryba. According to the Ambassador E. Bilotserkivskyi, Israel, together with the World Health Organization, developed a system of mobile units for emergency medical aid offices in emergencies, it is important to provide assistance to people affected by conflict in eastern Ukraine. [5]

Noticeable was also helping Israelis in training fighters for Ukrainian ATO. Israel coach Zvi Azriel, who participated in the creation of the Jewish self-defense squads Kyiv and Mariupol and delivery of Ukrainian fighters to Israel began in April 2016 to train soldiers newly formed battalion of light infantry of the National Guard of Ukraine. However, the thesis of official military assistance, including the sale of Israeli drones to the Ukrainian army, which is expressed by representatives of the Ministry of Defense of Ukraine, some Ukrainian public figures remains unfulfilled.

In August 2014, at the height of the anti-terrorist operation in eastern Ukraine and once in the sky Donbass shooting down the plane “Malaysian Airlines” and Israel at this time launched anti-terrorist operation in Gaza in response to frequent rocket attacks on Israeli cities and towns of the terrorist organization Hamas, Embassy of Ukraine in Israel issued a statement on the conduct parallels between events in both countries and the complete support of Israel. “Great civilian casualties and war can be avoided if the actions of terrorist organizations more strongly and firmly condemned by the international community”, – noted in a statement. In addition, the diplomats also expressed appreciation for the support of Ukraine Israeli citizens, including members of the group «Israel supportsUkraine» groups and volunteers «Israel helps Maidanwounded» [6]. It is necessary to point out that not all Israelis – immigrants from the CIS countries, clearly belong to Ukraine. In particular, activists of the public association “For Ukraine without Bandera” negatively perceive the new Ukrainian government. Israel often ambiguous in terms of the attitude of the international community for its actions in the Middle East will certainly appreciate the support of other countries, in accordance with building up its foreign policy.

In March 2015, the Israeli Ambassador E. Bilocerkivsky pointed out that “despite the difficulties, cooperation with Ukraine only increases.” One of the reasons – the constant position of Ukraine, against anti-Israeli resolutions at the UN. An important reason for abolishing the visa regime between the countries was staying Ukraine among only 18 countries that voted in November 2009 against the UN General Assembly resolution on the basis of so-called “report Goldstone,” which sharply condemned Israel for the operation “Cast Lead” in late 2008 – beginning in 2009 in the Gaza Strip that killed hundreds of Palestinians. The diplomat noted that Ukraine was previously difficult to explain Israel’s position in a situation where terrorists hide behind Gaza civilians and civilian objects as a living shield. However, since this “tactic” was applied in the territory of Donbass, Ukraine has become more understood Israel: “The relationship is more than just a good” [7].

Israelis conduct training for psychologists to assist military and civilian, who, because of the fighting were psychological trauma (as the interview was conducted 8 seminars). Home Nurse Ministry of Health of Israel in Ukraine conducted training activities Ukrainian nurses. In the Ukraine delegation visited “Magen David Adom” – the Israeli equivalent of the International Red Cross. They helped create guidelines for the crews of mobile clinics to assist soldiers and civilians in the area ATO [7].

During his visit to Vinnytsya, Ambassador E. Bilocerkivsky expressed confidence that Israeli investors not deterred Ukraine actually stay at war. He outlined promising areas of cooperation – agriculture as the most promising sector, health, science and innovative technology.

22-23 December 2015 was held a long-awaited visit of the President of Ukraine P. Poroshenko to Israel, during which meetings with senior management of the country. The President addressed the Knesset, met with Israeli volunteers to help Ukrainian army, visited in hospital medical battalion commander “Hospitallers” Ya. Zinkevich. The President thanked for participating Jewish organizations in Ukraine EuroMaidan, treatment Ukrainian military in Israel; apologized for some part-Ukrainian collaborators in carrying out the Holocaust during the Second World War. Talks with Prime Minister B. Netanyahu held behind closed doors. During the visit, scheduled joint programs in the field of engineering, signed an agreement on cooperation in transport security, joint film production, conducted important talks on Israeli investments in Ukraine and agreed on free trade between countries in the first half of 2016 (under high decline in turnover with Russia). However, FTA, unfortunately, has not earned.

Ukraine wants to develop relations with Israel in difficult conditions for it. Israel that survived in harsh conditions hostile Arab environment is an example for our country – the thesis of the article President Ukrainian Jewish Committee about the visit, which gave the Israeli newspaper “Dzherusalem post.”

Speaking of trade between the two countries, it should be noted that in 2015 it decreased by 10.5% compared to 2014 (1.745 billion dollars. Against 1,200,300,000 dollars.). This positive balance for our country amounted to $ 0,359,100,000. Trade in goods and services. Although Ukraine in terms of loss of a large part of its territory and the beginning of ATO, it can hardly be considered a serious decline.

In addition to the successful dynamics of development and achievement for Ukrainian-Israeli relations characterized by certain problems. The list is traditional – the question of social benefits Ukraine immigrants in Israel (pensions, benefits liquidators of the Chernobyl accident), Anti-Semitism in Ukraine, giving the status of “Righteous Among the” Metropolitan of the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church, A. Sheptytsky, no agreement on FTA problems with the return of Ukrainian at the entrance to Israel. The first one is unresolved in terms of difficult economic situation. But in 2015 the Supreme Court of Ukraine ruled that the Constitutional Court of Ukraine on the unconstitutionality of the law of Ukraine on pensions to citizens who left for permanent residence abroad after its entry into force (7 October 2009) is the basis for appointment payments. According citizens who received payment for the move – can qualify for the purpose of further benefits individually. Regarding the second, virtually all known incidents – attacks on several rabbis and yeshiva students (Jewish religious school) in Kiev in winter 2013-2014., throwing “Molotov cocktail” into the territory of the Main Synagogue in Podil, the repeated desecration aide in Manor Babi Yar – the Ukrainian government announced provocations foreign intelligence services. Theoretically, this could really be (head of the Jewish Confederation of Ukraine Boris Fuksman). For example, anti-Semitic rally in Ukraine in August 2015 was custom character [8]. The political situation in Ukraine in terms of actual confrontation with Russia is quite different than before.

In December 2014 the Israeli director of the memorial complex “Yad Vashem” – structures that repeatedly rejected granting the status of “Righteous among the Nations” Metropolitan A. Sheptytsky – made for conferring the title Metropolitan [9]. Value Sheptitskiy figure in saving Jews during WWII is for Israelis in general, of course.

September 27, 2016 during a speech in Parliament on the 75th anniversary of the Babyn Yar Israeli President R. Ryvlin gave the idea of cooperation of many Ukrainian OUN members and particularly with the Nazis during the Holocaust in Ukraine. It displeased many MPs, public figures in Ukraine. Thus, the problems of the past in some way deteriorated. As repeatedly noted the head of the Association of Jewish Communities and Organizations of Ukraine E Zissels, they need to carefully study the historians.

During the Forum “Ukraine-Israel. ’25 diplomatic relations from a common heritage to a common vision” in November 2016 in Kiev Knesset Speaker J. Edelstein opposed rewriting the history of Ukrainian and Jewish people as the one and the other. The forum discussed a number of issues the state and prospects of cooperation in the fields of medicine, tourism, culture, innovation, education, economy, etc. – organized six thematic panels, round tables.

June 7, 2016 in Kiev Agreement between the Government of Israel and the Government of Ukraine on temporary employment of Ukrainian workers in certain sectors of the labor market of the State of Israel. This agreement aims to normalized employment of Ukrainian workers in certain sectors of the economy of Israel, mainly in construction, in terms of annual quotas and social security under Israeli law preventing illegal recruitment of labor and employment, the fight against illegal migration. The agreement was ratified by Parliament in November 2016 According to the document Israel is ready to give 20 thousand working visas for builders of Ukraine.

Thus, in the Ukraine-Israeli relations there is a tendency to solve most problems. Complex tests of recent years made their adjustments to bilateral relations. The author believes that priority should be preserved Ukrainian-Israeli relations. Considering also the saturation of relations between the two countries the prospect of further research work is evident.


1. Ukrainian parliamentarians BP suspended cooperation with colleagues from the Israeli Knesset [Electronic resource] – Access mode: http://evreiskiy.kiev.ua/ukrainskie-deputaty-vr-priostanovili-13753.html

2. Ukraine for the development of interparliamentary cooperation with Israel [Electronic resource] – Access mode: mezhparlamentskogo- sotrudnychestva-s-yzraylem “http://ukranews.com/news/396031-ukrayna-za-razvytye- mezhparlamentskogo- sotrudnychestva-s-yzraylem

3. Ukraine: the car of the “Israeli consul” was confiscated [Electronic resource] – Access mode: http://izrus.co.il/dvuhstoronka/article/2016-06-05/31618.html

4. Poroshenko thanked Netanyahu for saving the injured Ukrainian woman [Electron resource] – Access mode:

5. Israel hurries to help Ukrainian medicine [Electronic resource] – Access mode:

6. Appeal of the Ambassador of Ukraine to Israel Gennady Nadolenko in connection with the events in Israel and Ukraine. – The Jewish Observer. – 2014. – August, No. 8/260.

7. E. Bilocerkivsky: “… despite the difficult situation, cooperation with Ukraine only grows stronger” / / Jewish reviewer. – 2015. – March, 03/267.

8. Rotten elements. The police did not prevent the anti-Semitic rally in Lviv // The Jewish Observer. – 2015. – August, No. 8/272.

9. Galician Metropolitan becomes “Righteous Among the Nations”? [Electronic resource] – Access mode:

The impact of general amnesty in 1963 on the international image of the regime of Janos Kadar

Mykhailo Yunger


The article is devoted to the domestic and international context of the implementation of the general amnesty in Hungary in 1963. The MSzMP Stalinist’s and Hungarian migration’s reaction to the amnesty is researched. It gives the picture on correlation between the interests of J. Kádár to overcome international isolation and awareness of the USA unproductive to continue the consideration of the “Hungarian issue” in the UN Committee’s as well as its interest in the settlement of relations with the HPR.

Keywords: Revolution 1956, general amnesty, restoring the membership of the Hungary at the UN, J. Kádár, I.Bibó.

During the 1956-1963 in the Hungarian People’s Republic introduced two large-scale amnesty. April 3, 1959 Presidential Council UPR adopted a decree № 12 “On partial amnesty,” the effect of which is not distributed to those who participated in the revolution of 1956. March 22, 1963 Decree of the President’s Council for number 4 “On Amnesty” was enacted amnesty, whose action has spread to persons who have been convicted of crimes committed “against the state or in connection with counter-revolutionary activities during the period from October 23 1956 to May 1, 1957 … “as well as those” who from the time of liberation (the official date of the liberation of Hungary from Nazi-German invaders thought 4 April 1945) this day without left the state” [1, 268- 270]. The adoption of this document was of fundamental importance to the pro-Kremlin international recognition J. Kadar regime because it has brought the situation of the international boycott.

Very interesting evidence on this subject we found in “Information on some political issues” [2, 128R / 177-132R / 177], which is part of the minutes of the Central Committee MSzMP of 23 May 1963. By this time, this document does not become the subject of study Ukrainian historians. As reported I. Sirmayi, adoption decree provoked criticism J. Kadar both in the MSzMP (representatives of Stalinist wing. – M.Yu.) and by representatives of the right political exile.

In particular, the Hungarian Stalinists, who according to party documents vocabulary then called carriers dogmatic beliefs, believed that the decree was hasty step and witnessed the surrender of the party to pressure from the West. Why always cautious leader MSzMP taken steps that could not cause the protest of the party leadership?

In 1960, J. Kadar, general secretary of the CPSU with Khrushchev, came to New York to attend the UN General Assembly. It was the first visit of Hungarian international leader. At the time, J. Kadar was for the part of the international community, which has not belonged to the socialist camp, bloody dictator, as evidenced adopted in resolution 1957 of the UN mandate to suspend delegation UPR through violent suppression of the people’s will of 1956. Despite the fact that during the speech J. Kadar October 3, 1960 the majority of delegations left the session hall in protest, just after it started negotiations between Budapest and Washington regarding the removal of “Hungarian issue” on the agenda of the UN. In this context MSzMP official Washington and promised to hold a general amnesty for political prisoners.

However, the first step did John. F. Kennedy, but not J. Kadar. In autumn 1962 the US delegation to the United Nations made a proposal to terminate consideration “Hungarian issue”. In this regard, the UNGA adopted Resolution Number 1857 (XVII) of 20.12 in 1962, which stated that the General Assembly: “1. General to take on any initiative which it considers useful concerning the Hungarian question; 2. no need for maintaining the position of the UN on the Hungarian issue “. The said resolution was adopted, but it was a significant number of those who abstained. After that discussion in the UN GA on the “Hungarian question” was stopped. In furtherance of this decision has 8 January 1963 the UN Secretary General accepted the credentials of the permanent representative to the UN UPR and the full membership of Hungary in the UN was restored [3, 421].

In response to these steps the US and UN parties in Hungary in early March 1963 at a joint meeting of the Central Committee, the Central Auditing Committee and Central Control Commission MSzMP adopted a decision on the declaration of general amnesty that was sold above Decree Presidential Council UPR. If the Hungarian Stalinists considered surrender amnesty position, the Hungarian political emigration, according to the “information”, through “Radio Free Europe” expressed the hope that the amnesty – a sign of liberalization UPR effective turn freer regime of bourgeois type. It is expected to make further steps to moral and political rehabilitation of political prisoners or more: Recognition Event 1956 revolution. Of course, such expectations CC MSzMP immigrant organizations objected, calling them hostile to the UPR. Further, the “Information” announces support for amnesty from the “fraternal, socialist parties”, including the Communist Party, which considered it timely; Italian Communist Party, who said that “amnesty contributes greatly to run an election.” Overall, it was reported that most foreign comments underline the fact that the Decree will positively affect relations between Hungary and the West – primarily on the Hungarian-American relations.

Since the 1962 main opponent in restoring full status in the UN UPR were just the US, the “Information” CC attention was focused on the reaction of the Hungarian emigration to the United States and, indeed, the power of the State. Was given rating amnesty A. Mosakom Szeged, Hungary ambassador to the United States (1945-1947). He, as the party document, commended the adoption decree on amnesty as a serious logical step government that will serve as a basis for resolving the tensions between the UPR and the USA. This information is found developed in the UPR reports embassy in Washington and the examples of publications of leading newspapers USA.

According to Hungarian diplomats, US Secretary of State D. Rusk in early May 1963 approved the text of the State Department memorandum, which was about an action plan for the normalization of the Hungarian-American relations. The plan was submitted for review to the House of Representatives and in the Foreign Affairs Committee of the Senate. One of the points of the plan assumed that the US delegation at the extraordinary meeting of the General Assembly will not oppose the return of the UPR of the UN member status. This point plan was strongly criticized by several members of the lower house and one senator. As noted document objection concerning the steps that the proposed exercise as part of the UN, as it was seen as treason case the Hungarian Revolution of 1956. Further full implementation of the plan showed that this idea of ​​individual congressmen did not receive wide support. The plan is also expected to raise the level of diplomatic relations between the US and Hungary to the level of ambassadors, J. Mindsenti finish the job and facilitate the organization of the official visit of the UN Secretary General Tan In Hungary, which took place on 1-2 July 1963.

In the “Information” drew attention to the mainstream media response to the US State Department action by introducing an amnesty in Hungary. Thus, on 14 and 15 May 1963 respectively, New-York Herald Tribune and the New-York Times published an article in which the unambiguously positive steps were evaluated foreign minister for the settlement of relations with the UPR. Symptomatic was already the titles of articles: the New-York Times – “Kadar building a better life in Hungary”, and article New-York Herald Tribune called “The United States will not prevent the Hungarian Accreditation at the UN.” In these articles emphasized that, after the implementation of the amnesty in Hungary, the US delegation at the UN will not provide most of the delegations of the UN member countries to advance proposals for further discrimination of the UPR. The introduction of an amnesty in 1963 considered step by the Hungarian government that removed many obstacles to cooperation between Hungary and the West. This set of measures had a positive impact on the international status of Hungary. By the end of 1963 diplomatic relations at ambassadorial level with the UNR restored United Kingdom, France, Belgium, and in 1964 – Sweden, Italy, Switzerland and Canada.

Thus, the amnesty in 1963 showed no weakness regime in the UPR become necessary as a response to US actions were motivated and real progress in the case of failure of the UN continue to consider the “Hungarian issue”. The game, conceived and implemented J. Kadar led to tangible victory because she had to go up the result of political isolation of the regime and its international recognition.

Why we should say about the “game” of J. Kadar? The fact that the general amnesty in reality “general” did not. According to the Decree on Amnesty was released to the 3,000 people who were sentenced for political participation in the revolution of 1956. However, its effect is not distributed to those political prisoners, members of the Revolution of 1956, who participated in the fighting and accused of murder and treason. Such individuals were up to 200. They continued to stay behind bars. In this regard, I. Bibo (a prominent lawyer and thinker of the twentieth century Hungary, Minister of State government I. Nagy in 1956), released under the general amnesty of 1963, in February 1969 sent a letter to J. Kadar. In the letter, paying tribute to the noble mission of general amnesty, he drew attention to the limited and therefore erroneous interpretation of the decree on amnesty for the above categories of prisoners and asked to consider applying these people amnesty on the 50th anniversary of the Soviet Republic of Hungary in 1919 [ 4, 307-311]. According to the meeting minutes MSzMP Politburo, the party leadership “took note of the letter” and instructed to report contributor of the fact that it is received [5, 11R / 120]. But even this formality was not performed, not to mention the consideration of the proposal I. Bibo merits. The international credibility of the UPR, radically improved thanks to a general amnesty in 1963, did not need another response to a letter from former political prisoner.

Acting for the legitimization of the regime, J. Kadar won in 1963 but lost in the future. The historical significance of the situation before us is that there are in the early 60’s, during the course Kadar triumph for social consolidation after the tragedy in 1956, was laid only possible coexistence algorithm UPR of socialist democratic world. Given multilateral UPR dependence on Western democracies, it was the need to compromise. First, as we have seen happen regarding image issues. Then, in the 70s, during the first oil crisis and falling living standards, took shape depending on the credit of the IMF and World Bank repression saved many Hungarian regime dissidents. And in the process of transit in 1989 by a sharp change in the geopolitical situation demonstrated the willingness of the “new”, after Kadar, elite MSzMP peacefully transfer power to the opposition, on which were the same democratic institutions of the West and the United States.


1.​ Magyar történeti szöveggyűjtemény. 1914–1999: 2 kötetben [Szerkesztette Romsics Ignác]. – Budapest : Osiris Kiadó, 2000, II kötet. – 560 old.

2. Tájékoztató néhány politikai kérdésről. / Magyar Országos Levéltár. M-KS 288. f.4/62. ő.e. (1963.05.23.) 128R-132R/190.

3. Romsics Ignác. Magyarország története a XX. században. – Budapest : Osiris Kiadó, 2005. – 668 old.

4. Huszár Tibor. Bibó István. Beszélgetések, politikai-életrajzi dokumentumok. – Budapest : Magyar Krónika, 1989. – 372 old.

5. Jegyzőkönyv a Politikai Bizottság 1969. március 4-én tartott üléséről. / Magyar Országos Levéltár. M-KS 288. f.5/485. ő.e. (1969.03.04.) 11R/120.

Diplomatic Guides of Ukrainian Central Council to Entente:

Gains and Losses

Igor Datskiv


This article is an attempt to analyze and to generalize the place of Ukrainian Central Rada in the external policy of Atlanta states in 1917-1918. Systematization and comparative analysis realization in military strategic and external political positions of Great Britain, France and the USA in the context of Ukrainian problem solving. The research has stated the place and role of Ukraine in the military and political strategies of Atlanta states.

Keywords: The Central Council, Atlanta, treaty, diplomats, delegation.

At all stages of state building of Ukraine during Ukrainian revolution of 1917-1921. As in our time of independence, the foreign ministry and his diplomatic service have always been an inherent part of the state, played, and played an important role in its formation and development. Of particular note is the study of the origin, development and activity of the Ukrainian diplomacy in the day Ukrainian Central Rada, when in extremely difficult conditions, geopolitical situation and in the confrontation with experienced diplomats unit of the Central Powers and Bolshevik Russia, it won out Ukraine in the international arena and forced other countries to reckon with it a full subject of negotiations.

During the summer of 1917, the Allies some interest in Ukraine and the United States did not show that explained the concept of wire towards State Central Council on autonomy within Russia and a solid line of the Provisional Government to continue the war until victory. In those days, the main factor of international politics in Europe was France, which became the nucleus of Allied and managed during World War II, especially in its final stage, to present itself as the leading world powers. In addition, France and the Russian Empire’s related shafts foreign long-standing close relationship. She certainly wanted to be in the face of a strong partner and ally in an armed confrontation with Germany. Therefore, Paris and its Foreign Ministry did not perceive the emergence of some public entities on the territories of Russia after the fall of the empire and made every effort to preserve a united and its armed forces, in particular the Ukrainian direction, which were the most powerful Southwest and Romanian fronts.

To preserve a united Russia France, eventually as Britain and the US, led economic interests. According to estimates of  V. Kosik, foreign capital invested in the Russian Empire, reached 2,242 billion gold rubles. Of these, France invested – 581400000, England – 507.5, Germany – 441.3, 341.6 Belgium, USA – 117.8 million. As you can see, the Allies and the United States certainly did not intend to lose money in Russia. In most industries Ukraine capital invested France – all from 210.6 419 200 000 rubles. That is, most of the foreign capital invested in Ukraine were French [1, s.27-28].

Of course, the first task of the French diplomacy was to keep Russian front far from the Baltic to the Black Sea, to ensure that preserved a huge military force, particularly in Ukraine. It is only on the Eastern Front during Germany 1917 held 74 divisions, accounting for 31% of all its troops during the First World War [2, s.324].

In Spring 1917 South-Western Front was a powerful military force. Highly experienced military leaders commanded it. Chief of the armies of the front – 59-year-old Lt. Gen. Alexander Gutor, staff headed by Lt. Gen. M. Dukhonin. In general, the front line was on the front 40 divisions of about 600 thousand soldiers. Equally powerful was the Romanian Front, leaded by chief of the Army General of Infantry D. Shcherbachov that the war was on the front, long commanded the armies in Galician direction [3, p. 280-281].

Thus, the forces that opposed the Eastern Front of Central States were very strong, and this prompted the Entente keep them, at least in the revolutionary events weakened condition. This is why they supported the anti-Bolshevik forces in Russia and Ukraine, as the Bolsheviks led by Lenin proclaimed the slogan of the fastest end the fighting at the front, the soldiers attracted millions of masses. Ness huge presence of troops on the territory of Ukraine leadership Central Council could not ignore in their relations and dealings with the Interim Government until it fall. These troops caused much trouble to the Central Council, as were tuned mostly hostile to it by way of Bolshevisation growth. They also complicate relations with Radnarkom result of certain agreements with Vsevelykym Don force to evacuate the Cossack units to Don through Ukraine.

The Bolshevik October Revolution in Petrograd radically affected the Ukrainian-Russian relations. General Secretariat to respond to an event appeal “to all citizens of Ukraine”, which did not recognize the People’s Commissars, headed by Lenin legitimate Government of the Russian Federation. The UCR proclaimed the Universal III, who founded Ukrainian People’s Republic and outlined a series of radical transformations of political life in the country. However, the introduction of its own government in the form of a democratic republic with its legislative and executive authorities and outlined area did not object federalist orientation guide of the UPR.

However, at the meeting of the Council on this issue, S. Shelukhin, stating historical and legal grounds for declaring independence, questioned the absolute external orientation of the Federation of Russia. Later in the book “Ukraine Pereyaslav treaty with Moscow Tsar Alexei 1654 and current events,” he stressed unequivocally that with the fall of the tsarist Ukraine regained its sovereignty in fact [4, 2].

In such circumstances, the Central Council sought support from the Entente and tried to establish contact with them. Therefore, in October-November, held official meetings and negotiations between Petliura and representative of France to the Russian Chief of General J. Tabooe. His successor, General Nissel, had a conversation with Hrushevsky. The head of the French military mission in Romania, Bertelo general, reported Paris for promising prospects of Ukrainian-French relations. “We must at all costs to promote the Ukrainian movement – thought he, while adding – in non-Austrian, non-separatism, non-Bolshevik sense” [1, p.102].

In these days, December 13, at a meeting of the Central Council Prime Minister V.Vinnichenko officially announced the creation in Ukraine Foreign Ministry – General Secretariat of International Affairs. Secretary of International Affairs Alexander Shulgin – the founder of modern Ukrainian diplomacy, a young but already well-known political figure, member of the Central Committee of the Ukrainian Socialist-Federalist Party, the Small Council – on behalf Hrushevsky participated in negotiations with the Provisional Government of Ukraine to provide autonomy. When, in accordance with the legal concept of Universal III, UNR government created the Foreign Ministry, Alexander Shulgin plunged into diplomatic contacts and achieved initial success in Ukraine’s relations with the Allied powers, especially France, Britain, Italy, Switzerland and Czechoslovakia.

Note that in November 1917 the management of the UPR was given a serious chance to talk with the Entente. It certainly could radically affect the events leading to the fall of the Central Council. Due to the uncertain situation at the front, Supreme Commander General M. Dukhonin be paid to the government of the UNR to allow transfer rates to Kyiv. But the agreement concerning only Nizhyn or Chernihiv, if the presence in it of representatives of Ukraine and other national government entities. November 20 Lenin and Trotsky was appointed chief Nikolai Krylenko. For refusing to begin negotiations for an armistice with the Germans General M. Dukhonin was arrested and killed by the Bolsheviks.

Thus, the Allied military missions of Entente at the Russian headquarters November 22, 1917 moved to Kyiv. Among them were: General Barter (England), Colonel Laverne (France), General Romeo (Italy), General Takayanachi (Japan), General Coanda (Romania), General Baron de Rikkel (Belgium). At the railway station they had arranged a grand welcome with honor. A representative of the General Secretariat of Military Affairs Yu welcomes guests. Hasenko, Kyiv Commandant Lieutenant General A.Tsytsovych [1, p. 116].

Thus, in the autumn 1917 the capital of Ukraine became the center of lively contacts and negotiations with representatives of the Entente, which, especially France and Britain, expressing attractive offers. Of course, these days the Allied significantly increased interest to Ukraine. This was due mainly them entirely understandable fear elimination of the Eastern Front and relocation divisions of Germany and Austria-Hungary to the west, where the distance of 100 km from Paris fourth year were violent and exhausting fight for both [5, p.75 ].

In the days of the Austro-German Eastern Front under the command of Field Marshal Prince Leopold of Bavaria had two German Army Group. One of them – Colonel-General A. von Linhinzen (from March 1918 – Field Marshal G. von Eyhhorn) – had 20 infantry, 5 cavalry divisions with artillery and special units and acting directly on the Ukrainian direction. In March 1918, this group of armies “Linhinzen” Wang was reorganized in Army Group “Kyiv”. In Ukraine there was also 2-Army cavalry Gen. E. Bohm-Ermoli Austro-Hungarian troops, numbering 8 infantry and 2 Cavalry Division, a total of about 450 thousand. Soldiers. It acted in its composition USS Legion under the command of Lieutenant Colonel M. Tarnavskoho [6 p.307-308, 371].

So, first of all Allied military leaders were aware of the value of close relations with Ukraine and Paris tried to convince the prospects of every kind of support to the UPR. The head of the French military mission in Romania and the commander of allied forces in southern General Henri-Mathias Bertelo in the memorandum stressed that Ukraine is practically separated from Russia, has a parliament and a government. “Ukraine – the richest in land. It can give about 500 thousand. Soldiers, his sympathy for France known … Since the Russian government still exists and the Ukrainian Council is becoming more and more a target for German and Bolshevik forces, I say to you the deep conviction to act” [ 1 s.112-113].

In late November and early December, the French mission in Iasi (General Bertelo) in Petrograd (General Nissel) and Paris intensively communicated on Ukraine. In the decisive requirements Bertelo Paris reacted less than Nisselya offers general who wrote the French Prime Minister Jean Clemenceau: “I agree with Ambassador – we should support the Ukrainian government, but official recognition seems premature. The current government’s tactic of Ukraine does not allow to know exactly what he shall do in the future” [1, s.124, 126].

Orientation UPR foreign policy towards the Entente, because these conditions shaken, but continued. One of her ardent supporters was the General Secretary of Foreign Affairs Olexander Shulgin. December 12, he made a speech in which he outlined the most favorable development of foreign policy of Ukraine. He shaved: “We have to rely on distant Western powers. We need to tell those countries – if they want to help Ukraine, we have to answer to our note. They must recognize the Ukrainian republic and officials here to send ambassadors. By doing so they strengthen our will be higher” [1, s.129].

O. Shulgin enlisted the support of General Bertelo that in mid-December sent J. Clemenceau immediately recognize Ukraine and take appropriate measures to establish interstate relations. “Recognize now Ukraine means to protect it from the Austrian advance; to free at least Southern Front of the doctrine of peace at any price; afford once we officially authorized to send back our trainers to rebuild the army, railway control and supply front. I think we have to recognize Ukrainian republic and give her our support – the better, the more it will include our intentions” [1, s.136].

Despite the demands of Ukraine to the Entente to recognize it and send ambassadors and officials to establish diplomatic relations in accordance with international norms, Paris confined delegation of French General Jean taboo Commissioner under the government of UNR. 5 (18) December 1917 he gave the head of the General Secretariat Vynnychenko letter in which he asked to take him to discuss important issues concerning Ukrainian-French relations the son [20 ark.10-10 called]. V. Vinnichenko previously refused to meet with individual members of military missions, we also categorically stated that only accept official ambassadors of the Entente after recognition of Ukraine.

The position of chairperson of UNR government fully shared O. Shulgin, who on December 17, said the influential French journalist J. Pelissier: “We want recognition of our Republic. We do not discuss this issue with many messengers who come to us today it can be a lieutenant tomorrow – Sergeant, tomorrow – aide. We want qualified person! We are tired of giving information. We must act!” [1, p.170].

Paris could not decide on the Ukrainian issue. Knowing that the Ukrainian delegation leaves for Brest as an observer in the negotiations of the CPC Central Powers, December 23 in the French capital hosted a special conference with Jean Clemenceau, French Foreign Minister S. Pishona, Chairman of the Military Committee of the allies of France Marshal F. Foch, and representatives who came from England – army Volyn NGO Minister Lord Milner, the Deputy Foreign Minister, Lord Robert Cecil, General JM Mc Don and others. The French side in his statement showed favorably to Ukraine, the British offered you his statement affection, but not officially recognize an independent state. General Nissel was transferred telegram of instructions, the French government still can not recognize Ukrainian government official without prior approval of the allies; while France recognizes the right of peoples to self-determination and support the Ukrainian national movement morally and financially [1, s.153].

Meanwhile, 20 December 1917 launched the first Ukrainian-Bolshevik war, and on December 23, the Bolsheviks occupied Kharkov and launched an offensive on Kyiv. In those tense days of general taboo anxiously wrote to Paris on the negative is not a decision on recognizing Ukraine, or overtake France, Germany UPR and acknowledging offered acceptable peace terms. However, this report hopes seam General to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of France, only 28 January and 5 February 1918 in Paris received a memorandum General Bertelo. In it, he rightly noted that “Ukraine dominates the situation, its existence becomes for us the key to future use elsewhere … On the economic side Ukraine and Don prevail over the rest of Russia. Therefore, our efforts should be focused primarily on Ukraine. French Business Group, sent to Kyiv, could be decisive would be if it were supported by clear and sincere desire of the Entente”[1, p.166].

At the end of December 1917, Ukraine faced a real threat of losing the gains of the revolution because it does not have its own armed forces to protect themselves from the Bolshevik aggression. So, essentially in a desperate situation, December 24 UNR government gave the warring parties to the Central Powers and the Allied note of the intention to take part in the Brest Peace Conference. January 4, her delegation led by Holubovych started negotiations. Taking the decision to participate in the negotiations, the political leadership of UNR out of national interests and expected to make peace with the Central Powers, stopping the aggression of Bolshevik Russia, since her delegation also took part in the conference. At the same time, Kyiv considered necessary to maintain good of the Entente powers. Among the supporters of the Entente orientation were many influential figures, including O. Shulgin, S. Petliura, V. Vinnichenko. Incidentally, M.Grushevskiy and never showed pro-German sentiments or opinions, which openly declared Ukrainian public.

Then, in December 1918, the head of the French military mission, General J. Tabooe wrote to Vynnychenko that although the Soviet state have received no formal decision to recognize independence of Ukraine, it expresses their sincere positive attitude to the government of UNR and hope that Ukraine will be an ally of the Entente. December 22 (January 3) General Tabooe with great enthusiasm in accessing Vinnichenko reported that the Ukrainian government sends official documents on the recognition by France of the Ukrainian state [7 ark.10]. Similarly, did the representative of England in Ukraine Mr. Bagge, who said that his country has good intentions and will support Ukraine in the development of state [8, p.233-234].

In those days, when the UPR was recognized by France de facto independent state, member of the French Embassy in Switzerland  Shatone wrote to M. Tyszkiewicz: “So, we are officially before the new state of existence which you contributed with such enthusiasm” [9, ark.29]. However, these and other statements and documents provided by the Entente, did not mean full and official recognition of independent Ukraine not become public acts of the respective governments. Since, according to the agreement in Paris with London, Ukraine entered the zone of activity of France – both military and diplomatic – General Bertelo and taboos in January 1918 made by the government along with the UPR in Brest Gatsi actually send a delegation to the negotiations with KSS Entente. V. Vinnichenko and O. Shulgin responded immediately and referred the 16 January SVO their representatives, led by Deputy Foreign Minister A. Halipom. Ukrainians met with representatives of France, Britain, USA, Italy and demanded: Ukraine recognize the independence of the great powers of the Entente; establish diplomatic relations and send ambassadors to Kyiv; provide material and financial assistance on concessional terms.

However, Western countries led implementation Ukrainian offers by stagnation and measures to implement that was almost impossible. Thus, the negotiations did not lead to positive research results. After the proclamation of the Universal IV Central Council and the solid development of the Ukrainian delegation in Brest as representatives of independent states and recognition of the UNR Central Powers, the Entente finally loses interest in Ukraine. 1 (14) February Bertelo desperately in Paris reported: “The main government proclaimed full independence Ukraine France … No, no, I think all the other allied states can not accept this decision. Our imterest in Eastern Europe – a strong and unified state, such as when was Russia. Only such Russia can become a counterweight to the Central Powers … declaration of independence would destroy this hope, and Russia would be fragmented German prey” [1, p.215].

In this way, before Ukraine signed a peace treaty with the Central Powers in Brest Entente, represented by influential representatives of France, was finally determined on Ukraine and Russia. When, after joining the Kyiv Bolshevik troops of Commander M. Muravyov gathered representatives of Entent, General J.Tabooe told him that France opposes independent UPR and its conclusion of the Brest peace, and found in his report to Paris, normal relations with the Bolsheviks. However, he refused further stay in Kiev. After permission to leave Ukraine Paris, the French mission (about 100 people) and other representatives of the Allied left Kyiv on February 23. In a memorandum of Lenin and Trotsky Ants noted that at a meeting February 13, 1918 all Entente representatives assured him the loyalty, condemned IV Universal Central Council and its peace treaty with the Central Powers [10 s.157-158].

Difficult evolved relations between Ukraine and the USA. Soon, after the Kiev military missions in England and France, in September 1917 there arrived from Moscow former US consul in Rome, Douglas Jenkins. On the then US attitude to Ukraine eloquently demonstrated by the fact that the US ambassador in Petrograd clearly warned Americans not to recognize any Ukrainian government. So he once had an informal meeting with the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs O. Shulgin was essentially a passive observer of events Ukrainian revolution. This was a manifestation of US national interests, Russia saw one and indivisible state, and Ukrainian issues considered it an internal matter.

“The most important issue for the Entente and the United States in December 1917 have been keep Eastern Front against Germany – rightly observes O. Pavlyuk. – allies, especially Britain and France, frantically searched for in Russia the forces that would continue military operations against Germany’s Final term victory.” West believed that it is capable only of United Russia, as evidenced by the statement Secretary of State Robert Lansing in early January 1918 and declared with great pomp in Congress on January 8 14 points of President W. Wilson, in which Ukraine is not even mentioned [11 s.375].

A significant role in the formation of this attitude to Ukraine played memoranda of Ambassador Jenkins to Washington, where he accused the leadership of the Central Council of pro-German sentiments, and stoned government “socialist” policies. Allies and the United States did not perceive definitely one of the priorities of Ukraine’s foreign policy – the struggle for peace without annexations and indemnities that were announced in the first note of the General Secretariat of the UPR of 24 December 1917 the governments of all the belligerent countries. An important drawback of the Central Council was autonomist concept of state building. The consequence of which was that during 1917 it has not formed the Foreign Ministry, means which could bring Ukrainian business in the international arena. Only in December 1917 O.Shulgin first appealed to the US government seeking support and networking. However, in desperation assistance of the Entente and the US and the possibility of using them to maintain independence and achieve recognition, Kyiv is increasingly leaning towards a separate peace with the Central Powers, since the peaceful proposals to end the war and peace in the world West did not respond.


1. V. Kosik France and Ukraine. Formation of Ukrainian diplomacy (March 1917 – February 1918) / V. Kosik. – Lviv: Publishing center of LNU. Franko, 2004. – 264 p.

2. History of the First World War. 1914-1918. In two vol. T.2. – Moscow, 1975. -606 p.

3. Kersnovsky A.A. History of the Russian army. In the 4 th vol. T. 4. – Moscow, 1994. – 364 p.

4. The Central State Archive of the Dependent Agencies of the Government and Governance (given by the Center for the Development of Ukraine). – F. 4465. Collection of documentaries of documentary materials of Ukrainian emigrant installations, organisation and autumn. 1901-1948. – Op. 1. – Ref. 972. – Arch. 2.

4. Pavlenko Yu. Ukrainian power in 1917-1919. / Yu. Pavlenko, Y. Khramov. – K., 1995. – 262 p.

6. Zalessky K. A. The First World War. Rulers and military leaders / К.А. Zalessky. – Moscow, 2000. – 570 p.

7. TSDAVO Ukraine. – F.2592. Assets of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the UPR. – Op. 3. – conjugation. 3. – Arc. 10-10 BC.

8. Derzhalyuk M.S. Brest peace and Ukraine / M.S. Derzhalyuk // Memory centuries. – K., 1998. – №1. – P. 40-58.

9. The Central State Historical Archive in Lviv (the Central State Historical Archives in the city Lviv). – F.681. Private Foundation Michael Tyszkiewicz – diplomat and politician UPR. – Op.1. – Spr.5. – Ark.29.

10. Antonov-Ovsienko V. Notes on the Civil War. T.1. / V. Antonov-Ovsienko. – Moscow, 1924. – 314 p.

11. O. Pavlyuk Ukraine at the Paris Peace Conference in 1919 / O. Pavlyuk // Politics and time. – 1999. – № 1. – P. 78-92.

Archival sources as a national historical and cultural heritage and part of cultural diplomacy

Vyacheslav Tsivatyy, Mariya Kulinich


The archival sources as institutional component of image formation Ukraine in the context of cultural and public diplomacy is analyzed at the article. The proclamation of independence of Ukraine in 1991 was the starting point for state and national revival of the country. One of the most important elements of this process was the cultural component, namely the formation of national identity, awareness of its unique historical path and preserve centuries-old legacy of past generations. Integral part of cultural heritage, which sheds light on the history of the country, society and individuals are archival sources. Based on the characteristics of the historical development of Ukraine, its archival heritage fragmented and stored in the archives, not only in our country but also abroad. Another cause of fragmentation archives were emigration processes that have proliferated in the late XIX – during the ХХ century. Ukrainians who went abroad, cooperating in the community, which in turn became centers storage of exported of archival documents. Since Ukraine gained independence made possible the question of conservation, return and prevent the theft of national historical and cultural heritage and wealth of archival association in the territory of a sovereign independent Ukraine. The cultural and public diplomacy are new effective forms of international relations and an effective means of forming the country’s image on abroad.

Keywords: foreign policy, diplomacy, archival sources, national and cultural heritage, institutionalization, cultural diplomacy, public diplomacy, Ukraine.

Taking into consideration characteristics of the historical development of Ukraine, its archival heritage is dispersed and stored in the archives, not only in our country but also abroad. Another cause fragmentation archives were emigration processes that have proliferated in the late XIX – during the XX century. Ukrainians who went abroad, cooperating in the community, which in turn became centers exported storage of archival documents.

Since Ukraine gained independence it made possible the question of retention, return and prevent the theft of national historical and cultural heritage and wealth of archival association in the territory of a sovereign independent Ukraine. To this end, created a separate state body – the National Commission for the return to Ukraine of cultural values ​​(NC) under the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine, which operated in 1992-1999, and later the State Service Control the movement of cultural property across the state border of Ukraine (DSC) under the Ministry of culture and Arts, which lasted from 2000 to 2011 both institutions were designed to implement state policy on recovery, and return to Ukraine of cultural values, to make coordination the ministries, departments and other organizations in the industry, and establishing constructive relations with the Ukrainian diaspora.

Through bilateral cooperation with CIS countries, the Baltic States, Poland, Czech Republic, France, Hungary, UK, USA and others., As well as with representatives of the Ukrainian diaspora NAF enriched to more than 200 thousand units (for time NC) and 150 thousand (with time DSC) cultural values, such as: documents, manuscripts, publications, books, photos, audio and more.

The vast majority of documentary heritage that came to storage in Ukraine for 1991-2017 years took place on the initiative of the owners of documentary collections (individuals – representatives of the Ukrainian Diaspora), diaspora organizations and associations, academic institutions abroad, as well as individuals and institutions operating in Ukraine and cooperate with organizations (parties) Ukrainian diaspora) [1], in particular through their appeal to the embassies of Ukraine abroad. Often, after contacting the official representatives of Ukraine abroad, by the owner of the documents concluded agreements transfer (donation) State Ukraine MFA of Ukraine in the face, then passed the documents to the NC (since 2000 – DSC), which solidified acts of reception and transmission; in turn, NK (from 2000 – DSC) documents sent for permanent storage to the relevant institutions.

Problems of organization and coordination to ensure the transfer of documents archived Ucrainica to Ukrainian Archives took over the part of Ukraine – Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Ukraine, Ministry of Culture of Ukraine, the National Commission for the return to Ukraine of cultural values ​​(NC), Public Service control over cultural values the state border of Ukraine (DSC) Ukrderzharhiv, state Customs Service of Ukraine and the relevant state authorities of foreign states were n between intermediaries of record creators and potential scientific and archival institutions of Ukraine. When transporting documentary collections across the border goods SCSU was arranged as humanitarian aid, thus not have to pay the cost of transportation and customs clearance, or record creators covered all costs at their own expense, which was very important for the Ukrainian side, as state funding for these needs is not enough.

One of the main actors of the process of return and transfer of archival documents Ucrainica in Ukraine were Foreign Ministry of Ukraine and representative offices of Ukraine around the world (embassies and consulates), which took over the glue between the future and the state record creators Ukraine.

Due to the MFA of Ukraine was returned archival and artistic heritage of the artist Gali Mazurenko from Great Britain in 1993 under the mediation of plenipotentiary NC Yu.Pokalchuk [2]. G. Mazurenko confirmed its desire to give Ukraine all his creative heritage: paintings, archives, books and manuscripts. [3] Already in 1993 was awarded an act of reception and transmission of archival heritage size 48 units, which arrived in Ukraine May 25, 1993 [4]. In 2000 after the death of Mazurenko G. her daughter Hale Taylor gave all its artistic heritage deposited in the Embassy of Ukraine in the United Kingdom, represented by Ambassador V. Vasilenko. [3] The transfer of materials the artist to Ukraine took place in 2003 with the assistance of the Ambassador of Ukraine in the United Kingdom I. Mityukova and Embassy staff and department head of the Office of Cultural and Humanitarian Cooperation of O. Vasilyeva (letter of NC O. Fedoruk to the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Ukraine A. Zlenko on June 3, 2003 [3]). Deposit transferred materials received in the National Museum of Literature and TSDAMLM of Ukraine (documents became part f. 1372).

Transferring to Ukraine of archival heritage of O. Olzhych and O. Oles also took place with the help of the Foreign Ministry of Ukraine. Thus, in 1993, their musical legacy was transferred from Czech Republic to Ukraine by Marc Berezovsky, bequest of his mother, Zina Ґenyk Berezovsky. Thanks to the efforts and assistance of the then Ambassador of Ukraine to the Czech Republic to Ukraine R. Lubkivsky sent bags of manuscript heritage. In addition, in 1995 with the assistance of R. Lubkivsky to the Manuscript and Textual been transferred Olzhych personal library, which has about 300 books [5].

In returning to Ukraine archival documents of Oles and Olzhych were involved the Embassy of Ukraine in Slovakia. In December 1996, when the head turns NC O. Fedoruk letter to the Ambassador of Ukraine to Slovakia D. Pavlychko asking to know whether living in Bratislava L. Kraskovska, who kept these documents and “disrupt the request for their transfer.” Sometime later, L. Kraskovska transferred to Ukraine several postcards written to her by Oles and Olzhych [12]. Now both artists archival heritage preserved in the collections of the Institute of Literature T.H. Shevchenko NAS of Ukraine (p. 114, p. 196).

The result of cooperation between the Ministry of Foreign Affairs Canada and Ukraine, Ambassador of Canada to Ukraine K. Vestdala K. and embassy staff R. Vashchuk and I. Tsar’kova and the National Archivist of Canada J.-P. Vallo was the transfer of Canadian archives of the State Center of the UNR in exile, which is one of the largest in number and volume of returned to Ukraine archival collections, as well as a high degree of representativeness and reliability of documents that joined the NAF Ukraine, greatly enriching source base study of the life and work Ukrainian political emigration in the postwar period. [7] The ceremony of transferring archives held in Ottawa, January 28, 1993, and three years later, in 1996, materials were transported to Kyiv and deposited in TSDAVO Ukraine (p. 5235). [8]

Historical value have also single documents such as the original letter of P.Skoropadsky addressed to US President F.Roosevelt from 1937,  which John Tezka  passed through the Embassy of Ukraine in the USA. Thus, in a letter from the MFA of Ukraine head DSC O. Fedoruk reported received from a US citizen John Teska Embassy of Ukraine documents related to the life and activity of the Ukrainian immigration post-revolutionary era, including a letter Hetman Skoropadsky [9].

After peer review of Head of information, the use of National Archive Fund and External Relations of the State Committee of Archives of Ukraine G. Papakin confirmed that by all indications is the original letter of Hetman Skoropadsky to President of the United States that had to be transferred to the recipient while on the North American continent, the son of Hetman Danylo Skoropadsky in 1937 [9]. This letter was deposited in the Institute of Manuscripts of the National Library of Ukraine named after V.I. Vernadsky in 2004 [2].

Besides fruitful cooperation of the MFA of Ukraine and NDT and DSC in 2007 overseas department began working together with the newly established Central State Archive of Foreign Ucrainica, which was created as a single point of storage of documents of foreign archives Ucrainica for replenishment of NAF documents belonging to the cultural heritage of the Ukrainian nation and abroad. [10]

TSDAZU peculiarity is that it is the only archival institution in Ukraine, which specializes in the search, registration, organization of storage and study documents of foreign Ucrainica and adapted for storage of archival, library and museum collections. This condition is quite important because a large number of collections that passed personalities and organizations Ukrainian diaspora contained not only archival documents, and book collections and exhibits. In such way was violation of the principle of the indivisibility of funds and spraying collections.

One of the main activities of TSDAZU is to establish international contacts with potential record creators – representatives of the Ukrainian diaspora and Ukrainian institutions abroad and in cooperation with the international Ukrainian community archives at the beginning of 2008 has been prepared “Address to the World Ukrainians”, which was sent several international NGOs, including the World Congress of Ukrainians, the European Congress of Ukrainians, Federation of Ukrainian organizations of Australia and others to inform about newly archival institution [11]. In turn, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Ukraine headed by the then Minister Vladimir Ogryzko at the request of TSDAZU sent out to all embassies and diplomatic missions of Ukraine abroad about creating a new archive and its tasks and mandate for a comprehensive assistance activities in TSDAZU manning documents’ archival Ucrainica” [12].

April 2008 was marked in the history of TSDAZU of important event – the transfer to the archives collection of documents from Slovakia of “Presov Collection”, covering the life and activity of the Ukrainian emigration in Czechoslovakia in the interwar and war period, relating to the history of the Museum of the liberation struggle of Ukraine in Prague, the Ukrainian Free University (UFU), Ukrainian National Theater in Presov, contain interesting information about political events in Carpathian Ukraine, Ukrainian émigré youth activities and educational organizations, theatrical life of Ukrainian immigrants.

Transferred collection presented: documents of institutions, organizations, institutions, associations, publishers and unions Ukrainian emigration (Document 744); documents of personal origin Ukrainian emigration figures, namely Agenor Artymovycha linguist, bibliographer Peter Zlenko, poets and writers Alexander Oles, Leonid Mosendz, Bogdan Lepky, Basil Hrendzhi-Don, actor Nicholas Sadowski, John Gorbachevskogo etc.; periodicals (newspapers, magazines, journals, newsletters) and renowned Ukrainian writers; manuscripts of works by Ukrainian writers and poets of the Soviet era that were isolating the fund “collection of Ukrainian poets – Sixties gathered supporters in Slovakia” (p. 11) [3]; exhibits – stamps and cliches various immigrant organizations, including Museum of the liberation struggle in the Prague colored sketches arms Ukraine (two tridents of artist Robert Lisowski) map Ukraine, etc. [13]. As a result of scientific and technical study was formed nineteen archives (p. 2-19, 26), of which eight personal funds (p. 3-10), ten funds, documents which were merged into the archival collection ( p. 2, 11-19), a fund formed from metric books (p. 26) and the library fund, which consists of 413 books and pamphlets (p. 1) [14].

“Presov collection” was handed Slovak citizen on condition of anonymity with the assistance of the Consulate General of Ukraine in Presov (Slovakia), represented by E. Perebiynis, who personally negotiated with record creators and persuaded transfer materials of high historical value and information. “Presov collection” was the basis of the stock archive, which marked the launch of the first profile archival institution aimed at archival storage Ucrainica.

That same year, the MFA of Ukraine transferred for permanent storage to TsDAZU copies of documents supporters Society of Ukrainian Culture in Curitiba, Brazil (p. 20). [3] Society is based on the total Ukrainian Congress in 1947 as an institution for cases of Ukrainian culture, information and representation. It organizes cultural events, theme nights on the history, culture, literature Ukraine. The Company is also involved in publishing activities.

Documents Fund mainly devoted to solving organizational issues (creating branches, new members, celebrations, exhibitions, etc.) And financial issues; Ukrainian culture in Brazil; issue aid immigrants from Ukraine; Ukrainian unity problem in Brazil; Correspondence with Ukrainian institutions and organizations; comprehensive issues and so on.

In April 2009, the Foreign Ministry of Ukraine passed TSDAZU documents concerning of the League of Nations – era Holodomor of 1932-1933 in Ukraine (in digital and printed form), of which formed f. 21 “Collection of copy documents submitted to TsDAZU” [3]. The fund kept international organizations appeal to the League of Nations famine in Ukraine and Ukrainian correspondence organizations, associations, officials of the League of Nations on Holodomor in Ukraine.

Thus, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Ukraine and representative offices abroad has played one of the most important functions in the process of returning to Ukraine cultural values, including archival documents. They were involved in the full cycle return process – from negotiations with prospective record creators to the physical transfer of archival heritage in Ukraine. It should be noted that an important role in the return of cultural values ​​played a documentary human factors such as professionalism, patriotism and concern employees of diplomatic missions and urged potential owners to transfer their record creators heritage home. Thanks to the work of diplomats and missions of Ukraine abroad NAF added invaluable material on the history of Ukraine and its prominent representatives.

It should be stated that, despite the political and economic problems, the present Ukrainian diplomacy successfully implements posed to her foreign policy goals XXI century. It is primarily about strengthening Ukraine’s position in Europe. Today Ukraine faces the same challenges and new threats that once were the EU. Therefore, in our opinion, in Ukrainian diplomatic service might be useful experience of public and cultural diplomacy in historical and future, as well as institutional changes in the organization of the diplomatic service, including the completion of the creation of effective Ukrainian Institute and its institutional components or conform to performance of its basic tasks of institutions are institutionalized (created) – cultural center consisting of foreign diplomatic institutions of Ukraine (ComPI).

The purpose of the Institute is the understanding of modern Ukraine and Ukraine to increase confidence in the international intellectual and cultural environment. “This identification of Ukraine – Ukraine is that for the average Dutch, Greek, or Brazilian, with which it is associated, and of course our attractiveness as a country – practical, tourism, investment. It also will help us integrate not only in the context of art and culture, but also science, education and many other areas, “- said Paul Klimkin during the presentation in the Foreign Ministry of Ukraine.

According to the idea Institute affiliated with the Foreign Institution, which, however, will be independent in determining the content of the work of the institution. Instead, control of the Ukrainian Institute and to identify principles and priorities carry Supervisory Board. The Institute will be financed partly from the state budget and through charitable contributions and donor assistance. As the creation of this institution and its follow-up should be based on an inclusive approach: participatory state, public sector, business and experts from abroad, Diaspora.

We believe that the main thing today – it does not change the names of the institutions and the creation of appropriate conditions for the state of its activities. Special attention deserves its activities aimed at creating a positive image of the country abroad, from the historical past to the present. The experience of European countries, the best way to do this is to use effective mechanisms and diversifying forms of public diplomacy, including such important aspects as diverse cultural diplomacy.


1. Tyhenko V. Peculiarities of receiving documents of foreign Ucrainica (experienced TSDAZU) / Tyhenko V., G. Gorbunova // Library. Documentation. Informolohiya. – 2013. – № 2. – P. 39-43.

2. TSDAVO Ukraine, f. 5304, op. 1 conjugation. 7, pp. 1-25 .; f. 5304, op. 1 conjugation. 7, pp. 11; f. 5304, op. 2 conjugation. 21, pp. 64, 70-76.

3. TSDAZU, f. 68 conjugation. 10, pp. 1-54; f. 11, op. 1 conjugation. 1-15; f. 20, op. 1 conjugation. 1-2; f. 21, op. 1 conjugation. 1

4. TSDAZU. The book proceeds cultural values. The current archive of the National Commission for the return to Ukraine of cultural values.

5. N. Lysenko Archive O.Olzhych in Ukraine / Lysenko N.V. // Ukrainian historian. – 2004-2005. – № 3-4. – S. 162-171.

6. TSDAZU. The current archive of the National Commission for the return to Ukraine of cultural values.

7. Lozitsky W. State Archive Center UNR in exile transferred to Ukraine / V. Lozitsky // Archives of Ukraine. – 1996. – № 4-6. – P. 11-13.

8. S. Garnagina To the question of forming the source base study of the history of international activity center exile UNR (1948 – 1992) / S. Garnagina // Bulletin LTSNU. – 2012. – № 21 (256). – ch. 2. – Access: http://www.nbuv.gov.ua/old_jrn/Soc_Gum/Vlush/Ist/2013_21_2/10.pdf. – Name of the screen.

9. TSDAZU. Current Archives State Service Control the movement of cultural property across the state border.

10. The Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine № 279-r of May 12, 2007 “On establishment of the Central State Electronic Archives of Ukraine and Central State Archives of Foreign Ucrainica” [Electronic resource]. – Access: http://tsdazu.gov.ua/files/law08.pdf. – Name of the screen.

11. Appeal to the World Ukrainians [electronic resource]. – Access: http://tsdazu.gov.ua/speach.html. – Name of the screen.

12. Berkovskii V. Central State Archive of Foreign Ucrainica – the first 5 years of operation. Results and Prospects / V. Berkovskii // Bulletin of the Central State Archive of Foreign Ucrainica. – K., 2012. – Vol. 1. – P. 14.

13. Lyholob N. Central State Archive of Foreign Ucrainica: First Steps / A.N. Lyholob // Archives of Ukraine. – 2008. – Vol. 1-2 (260). – P. 71-73.

14. Archive Fund TSDAZU [electronic resource]. – Access: http://tsdazu.gov.ua/index.php/ua/founds/archive.html. – Name of the screen.

“Chief of neither state”:

Adam Czartoryski idea of Europe

Gennadiy Korolyov


The article analyzes the tractates of the famous Polish aristocrat Adam Czartoryski, who was a Russian Foreign Ministry and leader of November Polish Uprising in 1830. Czartoryski’s perception of the European order and its principles considered as well. “The Idea of Europe” emerged as a conception of “idealistic” federalist state.

Keywords: tractate, diplomacy, the European order, the balance of power, federation, Europe.

In November 1830 in the Congress of the Polish kingdom uprising broke out against tsarist Russia. Already in January next year in Warsaw held the famous sejm, which decided detronization of Polish King Nicholas and the Romanov dynasty. The person who signed the resolution, was chairman of the national government, Prince Adam Jerzy Czartoryski (1770-1861). A brilliant diplomat and a subtle analyst, considered the creator of “diplomacy without credentials,” the Russian foreign minister, founder of the conservative-liberal camp “Hotel Lambert” and writer.

The future diplomat was born in Warsaw in the family of General Adam Kazimierz Czartoryski (1734-1823), one of the leading Polish politicians of the time, the famous literary and theater critic. Mighty Czartoryski clan has always been committed to the ideas of republican constitutionalism in 1764 close to it Stanislaw August Poniatowski took Polish-Lithuanian throne.

Czartoryski received a very good education at home, later traveled to Europe, where the admired British liberalism. Later Koenigsberg was reading the works of the philosopher Immanuel Kant (1724-1804), highlighting his idea of “perpetual peace” (Germ. Zum ewigen Frieden) principle and a moral imperative. It is known that the possibility of implementing “Perpetual Peace,” Kant ubachav in creating a federation of nations, which, in his opinion, would have prevented the emergence of “universal empire.” In 1788 Czartoryski was Marshal of sejm in Kamenetz-Podolsk, then moved to the UK. For him it was a special stage in life when he was able to read the majority of the then “progressive” ideas and philosophical concepts. In 1792 Czartoryski participated in the Polish-Russian war, later supported the uprising led by Tadeusz Kosciuszko in 1794.

However, a significant change in the life of Prince occurred in 1795 when his parents for advice Lithuanian governor General Nikolai Repnin (1734-1801) decided to send the children of Adam and Konstant to St. Petersburg. In the imperial capital, he gained a reputation as a Polish patriot and liberal, who enthusiastically welcomed the adoption of the Constitution of May 3, 1793 [1]. There he met the future emperor Alexander I, which maintained friendly relations. The rise of his political career occurred in 1801 when Russian Tsar became his friend. Czartoryski just entered the semi-official secret committee, whose members were close associates of Alexander I, the former aristocratic Fronde.

On January 16, 1804, due to illness, Foreign Minister Alexander Vorontsov (1741-1805), Czartoryski took over its powers, and not being officially appointed to the post. Since then it has become the most influential figure of imperial foreign policy. Actually, Czartoryski then turned to the problem of the existence of national state as a part of the great powers, and, in fact, Confederate/federal ideas. Peter Stegniy assumed that this interest was earlier, when Prince pondered revival project independent Poland within the dynastic union with Russia. Prior to that, he also bowed processes of that vast restructuring of Europe initiated by Napoleon in Italy, which, in his opinion, could only enhance the Union of Polish and Russian interests. However, the greatest success prince reached during the Congress of Vienna of 1814-1815, defensing Russian national interests in Europe.

Czartoryski strongly opposed any ties with France after the events of the French Revolution of 1789. At that time, he argued that the only way to restore partial or full sovereignty of Poland in the future have good relations with the Russian Empire. [2] Jerzy Skovronek explained the position of this business chief of Russian diplomacy: the formation of political opinion had a significant impact Czartoryski interest in the phenomenon of the constitution, Polish and Russian ideas of the Enlightenment. In our view, the future evolution of their capture by the British liberal ideas and Kantian “perpetual peace” with the concept of a powerful Slavic kingdom indicates otherwise. Proof of this is the work of a Russian statesman Prince and texts of his political pamphlets.

In March 1803 Czartoryski wrote a famous treatise “Sur le système politique que devrait suivre la Russie”, once submitted to the emperor. As you know, this important text was put to scientific use only in the twentieth century. Its content demonstrates considerable ideological evolution Prince after he took over leadership of the Russian diplomacy. This memorandum Czartoryski idealistic argued that international relations always influence the formation of the order, which supposedly gives everyone the right to exist. But he did not explain who this one, but it is obvious that the then only players in politics. Czartoryski arbitrarily interpreted the ideas of liberalism and the principle of freedom, which was the property of the philosophy of the Enlightenment. Hence his operation “own protection principles” and “the common good for humanity” [3]. Actually, on these grounds Czartoryski made some paradoxical conclusion that, in fact, contrary to the nature of recognized and described his ideas in the first part. Obviously, he was not an idealist, who allegedly did not understand the logic of imperial policy, which states Krakow historian Andrzej Nowak.

Czartoryski argued that, following gains in Eastern Europe and the Balkans, Russia should become the initiator of the federation of Slavic peoples. That is, he urged the king to take patronage over the peoples of the South Slavs and initiate the struggle for the rights of the Greek Orthodox independence. Next, put forward the idea of ​​uniting all the Italian states in confederal union under the auspices of the Pope. In addition, he proposed to promote the creation of Confederation of German principalities, independent of Prussia. Some Western and Polish researchers believe that the same Czartoryski wanted to instil the international politics right to self-determination, which was proposed by US President Woodrow Wilson hundred years later [4]. However, it was much more difficult and not so clear. In many aspects similar proposals were prepared by the then Russian colleagues Czartoryski diplomatic service: Italian Scipio Piatolli and Basil Malinowski. Common features unite all: justification of the idea of ​​European balance of power and the reference to Slavophilism.

In fact, the Polish aristocrat substantiated expediency of aggressive foreign policy in Europe, offering to strengthen its doctrine of universalism. In fact, becoming a spokesman for the Russian edition of Pan-Slavism. It should agree with the Cracow historian Andrzej Nowak, the danger of diplomatic plans and instructions Czartoryski was the relationship between true idealism reason this Russian policy to the real consequences of abrupt change in the balance of power in Europe. However, it was not a political idealist, though fond of then popular romantic philosophical concepts.

The validity of this policy Czartoryski saw ambitions of Napoleonic France, after winning over which proposed the creation of a European league of nations that would have to be guided by the “Code of rights of peoples”. [5] Along with this, the Union nations are not counted Polish aristocrat France, England, Prussia and the small German principality, which, of course, were a threat to foreign leagues. The paradox was that Czartoryski singled leading role as patron of this union of states. The offers he detailed instructions 1804-1806, emphasizing that the implementation of this geopolitical plan is possible only after the allocation of European possessions of the Ottoman Empire.

In his treatise “Sur le système politique que devrait suivre la Russie” Polish aristocrat described in detail own understanding people and justified the term “national constancy.” He wrote that “every nation has its own language, their customs and traditions, way of seeing and feeling”, which is his own personality, formed by history. Foreign conquest and domination can not be fully accepted people, because “everyone wants to be master in his house” [6].

Czartoryski was a supporter of Realpolitik and made every effort for success in the international arena. To that end, he initiated the Third Coalition against France. Once known provocations in Baden Petersburg launched an active policy formation antinapoleon Union. In a letter to Emperor Alexander I, he saw Baden events as the image of all European countries. Czartoryski’s position on anti-French coalition shared the chancellor Alexander Vorontsov, but between them there was no agreement on Prussia.

Although opinions of Czartoryski were respect, but his view on the place of Russia in Europe defeated. Prince strongly opposed the division of Europe into two spheres of influence of the two empires, as evidenced by the signing Tilzytsky Peace (1807) between Alexander I and Napoleon. Later it became clear that Russian Tsar thought otherwise: he realized the project “Holy Alliance”, based on the eclectic concept of “Russian-turn” in Europe, Christian ideals and ideas of the French Enlightenment. As you know, he succeeded. Although, in practice, situational alliance of Russia, Austria and Prussia opposed the idea of ​​division of “spheres of influence” in Europe. After these events, Czartoryski held several important positions in the Russian administration, but lost his previous influence on the king.

In 1823 Prince finished work “Essai sur la Diplomatie”, you can consider it a personal philosophical treatise. This work was prepared for publication in 1827, but was only after the July Revolution in France at the end of 1830 on its pages he analyzed the concept of “legitimacy of the peoples,” which was probably epigenous reinterpretation of the doctrine of popular sovereignty (fr. souveraineté populaire). Its essence is that it is only the people and the supreme source of power. The antithesis of “legitimacy nations” was the principle of the divine right when the monarch declared the sole source of power. The genealogy of the term associated with the work of the English philosopher John Locke (1632-1704) and Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679) and Geneva philosopher Jean-Jacques Rousseau (1712-1778).

Czartoryski, by contrast, treated legitimists all peoples as recognized as the right to sovereignty. However, as it would have in terms of the early nineteenth century. He did not explain. Although further opposition to this concept the principle of “legitimacy thrones” thinking about security guarantees of the international order. At this point, Czartoryski was a typical “son of his time,” which Kant repeated call that freedom and sovereignty of nations must protect it from appearing universal empire. [7] However, the Polish aristocrat he was the creator of the power of the empire, which claim to global dominance.

The multifaceted figure of Prince Czartoryski, his busy life as if embodying the essence of the then European international order. His idea of ​​”Europe of nations” was more than just call for the revival of an independent Poland in the family of free European nations. I am convinced that this strategy was the creation of empires and nation-states. However, that factor was seen guarantee world order, Czartoryski imaginable, remains unclear. Polish aristocrat was one of the most enigmatic figures of his time. Well-known Romanian historian Nicolae Iorga (1871-1940) called it “the chief of any state” (fr. Chef d’État sans l’existence), Czartoryski figure is still attractive to many Polish political symbol. But in fact he was selling intentions, he is credited by historians, a rhetorical question.


1. Stiegnij Piotr. Książe Adam Jerzy Czartoryski i car Aleksander I (epizod z historii „starego sporu”) // Myślą i słowem. Polsko-rosyjski dyskurs ideowy w XIX wieku, red. Ł. Adamskiego i S. Dębskiego. Warszawa, 2014. S. 120.

2. Morley Ch. Czartoryski’s attempts at a new foreign policy under Alexander I // American Slavic and East European Review. 1953. Vol. 12. Nr 4. S. 475-487.

3.Czartoryski Adam J. O systemie politycznym, którego winna trzymać się Rosja, 1803 // Pamiętniki i memoriały polityczne 1776-1809 (opr. J. Skowronek). Warszawa, 1986. Aneks II. S. 509-510.

4. Nowak Andrzej. Od imperium do imperium. Spojrzenia na historię Europy Wschodniej. Kraków, 2004. S. 167-175; Schroeder Paul. The Transformation of European Politics 1763-1848. Oxford, 1996. P. 250.

5. Wierzbicki Andrzej. Europa w polskiej myśli historycznej i politycznej XIX i XX wieku. Warszawa, 2009. S. 43.

6. Czartoryski Adam J. O systemie politycznym, którego winna trzymać się Rosja, 1803 // Pamiętniki i memoriały polityczne 1776-1809 (opr. J. Skowronek). Warszawa, 1986. Aneks II. S. 554.

7. Czartoryski Adam. Essai sur la diplomatie, manuscrit d’un philhellène. Paris-Marseille, 1830. S. 193-194.

Залишити відповідь

Ваша e-mail адреса не оприлюднюватиметься. Обов’язкові поля позначені *