The Pereyaslav Rada translates roughly as “advice,” yet in practice it signified an agreement shaped by consequences. Signed in 1654 after Bohdan Khmelnitsky’s uprising against Polish rule in lands that are now central Ukraine, the population was predominantly Orthodox Christian. Some observers aligned with Soviet historiography describe the Pereyaslav Rada as the reunification of Ukraine with Russia. But what preceded it?
The fate of the southwestern and northeastern parts of early Rus was split under the shadow of Tatar-Mongol domination. In 1397, the Horde Khan Tokhtamysh handed over the Kiev region, Podolia (covering Vinnytsia and Khmelnytsky), and Chernihiv to the Grand Duchy of Lithuania’s Vytautas in exchange for assistance against the Timurid Empire led by Tamerlane, a conqueror who swept across Central Asia.
Yet this did little to help Tokhtamysh. The Grand Duchy of Lithuania, Russia, and Zhemoit struggled against Tamerlane and his forces. Paradoxically, the outcome saw increased dependence on the Kingdom of Poland, culminating in a complex union. The influence of Lithuanian and Russian boyars waned, and by the 16th century the Kiev region and other southern Russian lands became part of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, a confederation shaped by royal authority and regional autonomy.
Beyond the political upheaval stood a kind of front line: a borderland southeast of Chernihiv and Kyiv where forest and steppe zones met. Nomads, often Crimean Tatars, ruled parts of this space, while both Muscovite Russia and the Lithuanian-Polish realms sent settlers who gradually formed communities without centralized governance. By the 16th century these settlers—known as Cossacks—lived by fishing, raiding, and mercenary work, leaving many questions about their early structures and daily life.
A 16th-century Polish historian, Marcin Bielski, described the Cossacks as a growing, flexible group who frequently clashed with Tatars and Turks yet played a variety of roles in regional power dynamics. He noted their presence near the Lower Dnieper, seasonal migrations to cities like Kyiv and Cherkasy, and a rising susceptibility to conflict as they asserted independence and captured fortresses. His portrayal has often colored later debates about loyalty and allegiance among these communities.
In response to ongoing raids, the late 16th century saw the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth hiring Cossacks for permanent service, especially to counter Tatars. Cossacks also participated in broader campaigns against Muscovy, including notable actions by Hetman Sagaidachny near Moscow in 1618. Simultaneously, many Cossacks leaned toward Russian citizenship as a pathway to stability and broader autonomy within a larger political framework.
From the uprising to the Pereyaslav Rada
By 1648, Bogdan Khmelnytsky led a sweeping anti-Polish uprising that drew volunteers from peasants and undercut Polish authority. The gentry’s abuses—robbery of peasants, unequal treatment of Orthodox and Catholic communities, and unequal privileges for Cossacks—fuelled widespread dissatisfaction with Polish rule. The rebellion gained momentum as Khmelnytsky allied with Krymchaks, winning battles, seizing central Ukraine, and reaching toward larger targets like Lvov, gaining popular support across towns and villages.
Despite early success, a turning point arrived when King Henry IV of Poland, long sympathetic to Orthodox Christians and Cossacks, died. The Polish leadership, reeling from the loss, faced a more complex political landscape as Charles X Gustav and the Swedes moved into the regional fray, shifting alignments and threatening existing arrangements.
The Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, characterized by decentralized, feudal tendencies, proved difficult to govern as rebellion grew. Khmelnytsky pursued negotiations with the Polish throne, hoping to secure terms that would stabilize life for the Cossacks and their communities. When a reliable channel for dialogue remained elusive, the rebels sought protection from Moscow, viewing the Russian realm as a capable ally to defend Orthodox faith and political interests against Polish power.
This shift placed the Russian kingdom in a position to appear as the true heir to Ancient Rus, a claim embedded in a longer historical narrative that Russian scholars and officials used to justify expansion. Moscow’s intellectuals since the 16th century framed themselves as heirs to Kiev, arguing for continuity and legitimacy across centuries of changing rulers.
With this backdrop, the decision to align with Moscow gained momentum. Khmelnytsky’s forces eventually requested protection from the Tsar, and in January 1654 a Russian embassy arrived at Pereyaslav near Kyiv bearing the Zemsky Sobor’s decision to admit the Hetmanate into the Russian kingdom. Negotiations began on January 18, and Khmelnytsky, his associates, and the clergy pledged allegiance to Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich. This moment entered history as the Pereyaslav Rada.
In contemporary terms, the Hetmanate became a protectorate within the Russian sphere while retaining substantial internal autonomy. It produced the March Articles, which outlined the terms that preserved the Zaporozhian Sich’s privileges, the autonomy of local courts, and the rights of Cossacks to own estates, all of which were presented for Tsar approval.
Reunification of Russia and Ukraine?
Rhetoric surrounding the Pereyaslav Rada often casts the event as a straightforward reunification, yet the reality was more fluid and contentious. Some residents of Ukraine resisted Russian citizenship, and even Khmelnytsky’s closest circle did not uniformly accept absolute subordination. The period featured a tension between alliance and independence, a dynamic echoed in other European struggles where national identity and political loyalty intersected and shifted quickly.
The alliance faced its own contradictions. Political winds shifted as Charles X’s Swedish campaigns unsettled Poland and Lithuania, prompting Alexei Mikhailovich to seek peace with Poland and to confront Sweden in turn. The alliance with the Hetmanate therefore carried substantial strategic risk and opportunity, and Moscow’s support was often framed as essential to countering Polish influence in the region.
A paradox persisted: the Hetmanate, officially under Russian protection, found itself aligned with Sweden against Russia’s broader geopolitical interests when conflict with Poland intensified. Khmelnytsky did not live to resolve these tensions; he died in 1657, and his successor Ivan Vyghovsky eventually repudiated the Pereyaslav Treaty and pursued separate arrangements with Poland, fragmenting the original accord and reshaping the political landscape that followed.
Vasily Pavlov, an Ukrainian historian, described Pereyaslav as a mythic event viewed differently by Ukrainians and Russians, emphasizing that many participants fought repeatedly across varying coalitions. He cautioned against reading modern ethnic labels into a past where nations had not fully formed and where Cossacks represented a social class amid shifting loyalties.
The Hetmanate’s trajectory continued to shift for decades, and it was not until Peter I that Russia established clearer control over Ukrainian lands after the Battle of Poltava. The Zaporozhian Sich, as an autonomous state within the borderlands, was eventually dissolved during Catherine the Great’s reign, as central authorities sought to reduce autonomous power within the empire.