From the mid-17th century onward, Ukraine’s historical trajectory became inextricably linked with the expanding Russian Empire. What began as a strategic alliance between Cossack warriors and the Tsardom of Moscow evolved into a prolonged struggle for autonomy, cultural preservation, and ultimately, national identity. This article explores how centuries of Russian domination paradoxically strengthened Ukrainian national consciousness, transforming a region once dismissed as “Little Russia” into a nation with a distinct cultural and political voice.

The Historical Background of Cossack Autonomy

The Cossack Hetmanate emerged from the ashes of the Khmelnytsky Uprising (1648–1654), a massive rebellion against Polish-Lithuanian rule that reshaped Eastern European geopolitics. By the time the dust settled, the Treaty of Andrusovo (1667) had divided Ukrainian lands between Poland and Russia, with Moscow securing the left bank of the Dnieper River and the city of Kyiv. The Cossacks, fierce warrior-farmers of the steppe, retained a degree of autonomy under Russian suzerainty, though their territory was now fractured into three distinct entities: the Hetmanate, the Zaporizhian Sich, and Sloboda Ukraine.

The Hetmanate, centered around the capital of Baturyn northeast of Kyiv, was the largest and most politically significant of these entities. With a population of approximately 1.2 million by 1700, it was a land of contrasts—cosmopolitan cities like Kyiv stood alongside nearly 1,800 villages, while a small elite class known as the starshyna controlled vast estates worked by impoverished peasants. This elite class enjoyed privileges granted by the Russian tsars, including tax exemptions and monopolies on lucrative trades like distilling, while the majority of the population faced escalating burdens of military service and feudal obligations.

The Mazepa Uprising and the End of Autonomy

The turning point in Russian-Ukrainian relations came during the reign of Ivan Mazepa, one of the most complex and controversial figures in Ukrainian history. Elected Hetman in 1687 with Russian support, Mazepa initially cultivated close ties with Tsar Peter I, supporting his campaigns against the Ottoman Empire and suppressing peasant revolts. Under his rule, the Hetmanate experienced a cultural flowering, with the construction of magnificent Baroque churches and the promotion of Ukrainian artistic traditions.

However, the Great Northern War (1700–1721) between Russia and Sweden exposed growing tensions between Mazepa’s autonomy and Peter’s centralizing ambitions. The tsar’s demands for Cossack troops to fight in distant northern battles, the imposition of Russian and German officers over Cossack units, and rumors that Peter intended to replace Mazepa with a foreign general all eroded the alliance. The final breach came in 1708 when Peter refused to protect Ukrainian lands from Polish invasion, a violation of the Pereiaslav Agreement that had originally established the Russian-Cossack alliance.

Mazepa’s fateful decision to ally with Sweden’s Charles XII in 1708 culminated in the Battle of Poltava in June 1709—a catastrophic defeat for the Swedish-Ukrainian forces. Peter’s troops razed the Cossack capital of Baturyn and destroyed the Zaporizhian Sich, extinguishing the last embers of Ukrainian autonomy. Mazepa died in exile months later, his legacy forever polarized between those who viewed him as a traitorous opportunist and those who celebrated him as a symbol of Ukrainian resistance.

Cultural and Social Impacts of Russian Domination

Following Mazepa’s defeat, the Russian Empire systematically dismantled Ukrainian self-rule. The Hetmanate was gradually absorbed into the imperial administration, with Russian officials overseeing key institutions and a new government body—the Little Russian Collegium—established to share power with the Hetman. Ukrainian publications were censored, the Kyiv Metropolitanate was abolished, and the Orthodox Church was placed under state control. Most devastatingly, serfdom was formally introduced in 1783, binding the majority of Ukrainians to the land and to their landlords.

Catherine the Great completed Peter’s work of integration, declaring that Ukrainian provinces “should be Russified” and that all memory of the Hetmanate era should be erased. The Zaporizhian Sich was destroyed in 1775, and its lands were parceled out to Russian nobles and foreign colonists. Meanwhile, Russian territorial expansion continued apace: the Crimean Khanate was annexed in 1783, and the partitions of Poland (1772–1795) brought right-bank Ukraine under Russian control. By the end of the 18th century, approximately 90% of ethnic Ukrainians lived under Russian rule.

The policy of Russification operated on multiple fronts. Culturally, the Russian government promoted the idea that Ukrainians were “Little Russians”—a branch of the broader Russian nation rather than a distinct people. The Ukrainian language was dismissed as a peasant dialect, and education was conducted exclusively in Russian. The University of Kharkiv (1805) and Kyiv University (1834) became vehicles for spreading Russian culture, while Polish-language schools in right-bank Ukraine were shut down. Religiously, the Uniate Church was suppressed in 1839, with its parishes forcibly transferred to the Russian Orthodox Church.

The Paradox of National Awakening

Despite—or perhaps because of—these oppressive measures, the 19th century witnessed a remarkable cultural and national revival among Ukrainians. The publication of Ivan Kotliarevsky’s “Eneida” (1798), a playful adaptation of Virgil’s Aeneid in the Ukrainian vernacular, marked the beginning of modern Ukrainian literature. Intellectuals like Mykhailo Maksymovych began collecting folk songs and studying dialects, arguing that Ukrainian and Russian were distinct though related languages.

This cultural movement took a political turn with the formation of the secret Brotherhood of Saints Cyril and Methodius in 1845, which advocated for the abolition of serfdom and the creation of a Slavic federation including an autonomous Ukraine. Though swiftly suppressed by the tsarist police, the brotherhood produced Ukraine’s national bard: Taras Shevchenko. Born a serf, Shevchenko’s poetry gave voice to the Ukrainian struggle, celebrating Cossack glory while condemning Russian imperialism. His works were so inflammatory that he spent a decade in exile, forbidden from returning to Ukraine even after his pardon.

Shevchenko’s legacy inspired a new generation of activists who formed hromadas (communities) to promote Ukrainian education and culture. The Russian government responded with harsh repressions, including the Valuev Circular (1863) and the Ems Decree (1876), which banned most Ukrainian-language publications. Yet these very suppressions fueled the movement, as Ukrainians increasingly saw themselves as a nation distinct from Russia.

Socioeconomic Transformations and Political Movements

The abolition of serfdom in 1861 promised liberation but delivered new forms of exploitation. Former serfs were forced to pay redemption fees for land they had worked for generations, plunging many into debt and poverty. By 1900, the average landholding per Ukrainian peasant had halved since the 1860s, while a small class of landowners—often Russians or polonized Ukrainians—controlled vast estates. This rural crisis fueled mass emigration to Siberia and the Far East, as well as growing peasant unrest.

Industrialization, concentrated in eastern Ukraine, created new social dynamics. The Donbas region became a hub for coal mining and metallurgy, drawing investment from French, British, and Belgian capitalists. But most industrial workers were migrants from Russia, leaving Ukrainians largely confined to the countryside. By the early 20th century, cities like Kyiv and Odesa were predominantly Russian-speaking, while Ukrainians remained an underrepresented majority in their own land.

These changes spurred the emergence of political movements. The Revolutionary Ukrainian Party (RUP), founded in 1900, sought to blend socialism with nationalism, advocating for an independent Ukraine “from the Carpathians to the Caucasus.” Other groups, like the Ukrainian Radical Democratic Party, pursued more moderate goals of autonomy within a democratic Russian empire. The 1905 Revolution briefly opened space for political activity, but the tsarist regime quickly reasserted control, suppressing Ukrainian organizations and reinstating bans on Ukrainian publications.

Legacy and Modern Relevance

By the outbreak of World War I, Ukrainian national consciousness had evolved dramatically from the fragmented identities of the 17th century. Though still predominantly rural and illiterate, many Ukrainians now saw themselves as part of a distinct nation, thanks to the efforts of writers, activists, and educators who had defied Russification policies. The very measures intended to assimilate Ukrainians had inadvertently strengthened their resolve to preserve their language and culture.

The Cossack legacy, particularly the Mazepa uprising, became a powerful symbol of resistance. Romanticized in poetry by Lord Byron and operas by Tchaikovsky, Mazepa embodied the struggle for freedom against overwhelming odds. Shevchenko’s poetry, meanwhile, provided a moral and cultural foundation for modern Ukrainian identity, emphasizing the injustice of foreign domination and the dignity of the common people.

Today, this history remains deeply relevant. The ongoing conflict between Russia and Ukraine is, in many ways, a continuation of the centuries-long struggle over Ukrainian sovereignty and identity. The Russian government’s insistence on a “shared history” and “brotherly peoples” echoes the tsarist concept of “Little Russia,” while Ukraine’s determination to assert its distinctiveness reflects the same spirit that animated Mazepa and Shevchenko.

The story of Ukraine under Russian rule is ultimately one of resilience. Suppressed politically, exploited economically, and marginalized culturally, Ukrainians nevertheless nurtured a national consciousness that would ultimately outlast the Russian Empire itself. From the ashes of the Hetmanate arose a modern nation, forged in opposition to empire and dedicated to the principle of self-determination.