Ivan Mazepa served as hetman of the Zaporozhian Host, a military and political entity once aligned with the Russian Empire and operating within the lands of modern central Ukraine. In the autumn of 1708, amid the Great Northern War, Mazepa shifted allegiance from Tsar Peter I to Charles XII of Sweden. Prior to this break, the Tsar had trusted Mazepa deeply, ensuring him the Order of St. Andrew the First Called, the highest honor, previously bestowed only upon Peter’s closest ally, Field Marshal Fyodor Golovin. The change in loyalty was received by Peter as a grave personal affront, and he reportedly viewed Mazepa’s defection as an act worthy of the name Judas, later awarding a rival order in its memory.
The undeniable dilemma of Mazepa’s betrayal has colored post-Soviet and some Western historiographies, where he is often depicted as Russia’s traitor. The narrative generally follows a sweeping timeline: a united but troubled Russia, the Mongol invasions, and the lands associated with the Principality of Lithuania gradually becoming Ukraine. The Khmelnytsky uprising and the Pereyaslav Council of 1654 are cited as pivotal moments, after which many argue that Russian influence tightened under Moscow’s rule. Mazepa’s later alliance with Sweden is sometimes framed as a reaction to this long arc of perceived encroachment, drawing parallels to other historical loyalties in different theaters of conflict.
Division of the Cossacks
Scholars note that popular portrayals in historical and political journalism often miss subtleties. At the time of the Mongol invasions, Ancient Russia comprised a mosaic of principalities rather than a single centralized state, with Kiev as the traditional capital and Moscow gradually asserting its influence in later centuries. The idea that Moscow was the sole heir to the “mother of Russian cities” is contested by many historians who emphasize the complex web of loyalties and regional ambitions that shaped the era.
Moreover, the Pereyaslav Rada is not universally treated as a decisive turning point on par with events like German unification under Bismarck. The Zaporozhian Host did enter an Orthodox bond with Muscovy, yet many viewed it as a limited association rather than a complete absorption. Khmelnytsky’s earlier wars with Poland were driven by negotiations and strategic choices as much as by ideology. When the decision to place the Hetmanate under Moscow’s protection became apparent, some groups resisted, while others sought stability through different arrangements. Over time, the strategic landscape shifted via military and political realignments, including changes that affected the left and right banks of the Dnieper.
Subsequent years saw further shifts. Russia’s wartime alliance with Poland complicated the earlier pact with Mazepa’s state, creating a multi-layered political map in which the Hetmanate’s autonomy and its alignment with neighboring powers were debated, negotiated, and sometimes contested. The left bank fell under one set of arrangements while the right bank moved along another, and Mazepa’s governance became intertwined with these broader dynamics.
Why Mazepa respected Peter Mazepa?
Historians disagree about the motives behind Mazepa’s repeated recalibrations of loyalty. Pre-revolutionary writers often portrayed him as calculating, sometimes self-serving, and keenly aware of shifting power. A recurring theme in their analyses is that Mazepa’s moral compass was tempered by a belief that power was transient and that survival required adaptability. He is portrayed as someone who navigated alliances with Poles, Russians, and others, sometimes switching sides when prospects looked favorable. Some contemporaries argued that his decisions were shaped by long-standing personal ambitions and strategic calculations rather than a single moment of betrayal. These assessments are supported by the remarks of scholars who emphasized Mazepa’s long history of political maneuvering and fluctuating loyalties.
Intrigue and personal advancement have long marked political life, and Mazepa’s career is often considered through that lens. Nevertheless, there were periods when his leadership enjoyed broad support among the Cossacks for his independent policies, economic initiatives, and cultural patronage. Under his leadership, developments in trade with Black Sea and Danube regions flourished, and significant investments funded public works, church construction, and architectural revival in Kiev. He also distributed land to support mining, saltpeter production, and forge development, weaving economic growth into the fabric of his governance.
When Peter the Great came to power, Mazepa already possessed substantial experience and offered counsel on relations with neighboring polities. During the Northern War, Cossack regiments served within the tsarist army and participated in campaigns along the Baltic, suffering notable losses, such as the Narva defeat in 1700. In this period, Peter acknowledged Mazepa as a valuable ally and rewarded him with the Order, recognizing his usefulness to the state. Within Moscow’s ranks, he was praised as a capable and profitable leader who contributed to the imperial effort.
Break with Russia
Yet the alliance with Moscow carried a heavy cost. The Hetmanate enjoyed autonomy but embraced a union with Russia for protection against external threats, while Peter sought to centralize governance. The deployment of Cossack forces northward while Ukraine faced relative vulnerability sparked unease among many. The divergence between immediate strategic needs and local defenses created a fault line in Mazepa’s administration.
The decisive rupture occurred in 1707 when a decree aimed at incorporating Kiev and other Cherkasy cities into a centralized provincial framework signaled a move away from autonomous status. Critics within the Hetmanate accused Mazepa of seeking excessive accommodation with Moscow. Rumors circulated that he might be replaced by a loyalist official, further destabilizing the balance of power.
Whether the conspiracy solidified at that moment or developed gradually remains unclear, but by October 25, 1708, Mazepa took a bold step during a Swedish assault by leaving the Desna with a contingent of loyal followers and formalizing an alliance with Charles XII. In this frame, Mazepa was portrayed as the figure who granted the Ukrainian principality new rights and status, while the Hetmanate’s factions split into pro-Russian and pro-Swedish camps.
Thousands chose Mazepa, yet the discipline expected by Karl XII did not always hold, and desertions followed. In 1709, at Poltava, many Cossacks did not align with the Swedish posture, and the Swedish cause collapsed. Mazepa fled to the Ottoman Empire, where he died shortly thereafter.
In contemporary Ukraine, Mazepa is often celebrated as a significant historical leader, while in Russia his name still carries a strong association with treason in popular memory.