Cossacks Are Not 'Russian Cossacks'

Where Did This Myth Come From?

Russian imperial, and later Soviet, historiography consistently equated the Zaporozhian Cossacks with the Don Cossacks and other Cossack formations of the Russian Empire. The Khmelnytsky Uprising was presented as a “reunification” with Russia, and the entire Cossack era was interpreted as the Ukrainians’ desire to join the “fraternal” Muscovite state.

This narrative ignores the fundamental differences between the Zaporozhian Cossacks and the Cossack hosts of the Russian Empire, distorts the essence of the Pereiaslav Council of 1654, and conceals centuries of Cossack struggle against Moscow.

The Zaporozhian Sich: A Unique State Formation

Democratic Governance

The Zaporozhian Sich was a unique example of proto-democratic governance in the Europe of its time:

• The Kish Otaman was elected by a general assembly (the Sich Rada) of all Cossacks and could be removed at any moment
• Every Cossack had an equal vote regardless of origin or wealth
• The starshyna (colonels, judges, scribes) was also elected
• There was Cossack law — an independent legal system, beholden neither to the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth nor to Muscovy
• Courts were conducted by elected judges under Cossack customary law

For comparison: in the Muscovite state at that time, autocracy prevailed — the absolute power of the tsar with the complete disenfranchisement of subjects. The Don Cossacks, while they had some autonomy, never created anything comparable to the Sich’s statehood.

Military Organization

The Zaporozhian Host had its own organizational structure:

• 38 kurins — basic military and administrative units
• Palankas — territorial subdivisions in lands under the Sich’s control
• Its own fleet — the famous Cossack “chaiky” (seagulls), which carried out raids on Istanbul and Crimean fortresses
• Artillery, engineering units, intelligence

The Cossack fleet terrorized the Ottoman Empire — the most powerful state of the Mediterranean. Raids on Kaffa (1616), Trebizond (1625), and the outskirts of Istanbul (1615, 1624) had no parallels among the Don Cossacks.

The Hetmanate: A Cossack State

The Khmelnytsky Uprising and the Creation of a State

In 1648, Bohdan Khmelnytsky launched a National Liberation War against the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. The result was the creation of the Hetmanate (the Zaporozhian Host) — a Cossack state with:

• Its own territory — from Sloboda Ukraine to Podilia
• An administrative system — the regimental-company structure
• Diplomatic relations — Khmelnytsky negotiated with the Ottoman Empire, the Crimean Khanate, Sweden, Moldavia, Transylvania, and Venice
• Its own financial system — tax collection, a treasury
• A judicial system — Cossack courts

In his letters, Khmelnytsky styled himself “Hetman of the Zaporozhian Host and Autocrat of Rus” — emphasizing a Rus (Ukrainian), not Muscovite, identity.

The Pereiaslav Council of 1654: Not a “Reunification”

One of the greatest myths is that the Pereiaslav Council meant the “reunification” of Ukraine with Russia. In reality:

1. It was a treaty (protectorate), not an annexation — Khmelnytsky was seeking a temporary patron amid the war with Poland
2. The Muscovite embassy refused to swear an oath of allegiance to the treaty on behalf of the tsar — which shocked Khmelnytsky and the Cossack starshyna
3. The terms of the treaty preserved Cossack self-governance, the right to elect the hetman, to maintain their own army and courts
4. Moscow systematically violated the terms from the very beginning
5. The term “reunification” is a Soviet ideological construct from 1954 (the 300th anniversary of Pereiaslav) that did not exist in the documents of the time

As Orest Subtelny noted: “The Cossack treaties with Moscow had the character of a temporary protectorate, not an eternal union or, even less, an incorporation.”

Cossacks Against Moscow

After the Pereiaslav Council, Cossacks repeatedly rose against Moscow:

Ivan Vyhovsky (1657–1659)

Khmelnytsky’s successor broke relations with Moscow and signed the Treaty of Hadiach (1658) with the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, envisioning the creation of an equal Principality of Rus within a tripartite federation. In the Battle of Konotop (1659), the Cossack-Tatar forces routed the Muscovite army — one of Moscow’s heaviest defeats in the 17th century.

Ivan Mazepa (1687–1709)

Hetman Mazepa sided with Sweden during the Great Northern War, seeking to restore Cossack independence. Although the Battle of Poltava (1709) ended in defeat, the very fact of Mazepa’s revolt proves that the Cossacks did not consider themselves part of Russia.

After Poltava, Peter I ordered:

• The destruction of the Cossack capital — Baturyn (mass killing of civilians)
• The abolition of hetman elections
• The anathematization of Mazepa (which the Moscow Patriarchate repeats annually to this day)

Pylyp Orlyk (1710)

Mazepa’s associate Pylyp Orlyk in 1710 wrote the “Pacts and Constitutions of the Rights and Liberties of the Zaporozhian Host” — one of the earliest constitutional documents in Europe. Orlyk’s Constitution:

• Guaranteed the electability of the hetman and starshyna
• Established limits on the hetman’s power
• Provided for regular sessions of the General Rada
• Protected the rights of Cossacks and townspeople

This document preceded the American and French constitutions by several decades and has no analogues in the Muscovite state of the time.

Russia’s Liquidation of Cossackdom

Russia systematically destroyed Cossack autonomy:

Year	Event
1654	Pereiaslav Council — beginning of restrictions
1709	Destruction of Baturyn, persecution of Mazepa’s followers
1722	Creation of the Little Russian Collegium for control
1764	Abolition of the Hetmanate by Catherine II
1775	Destruction of the Zaporozhian Sich by order of Catherine II
1783	Introduction of serfdom in Ukrainian lands

The destruction of the Sich in 1775 was one of the key acts of colonization. Catherine II ordered the annihilation of this “nest of freedom” after the Cossacks were no longer needed following the victory in the Russo-Turkish War. Cossack lands were distributed among Russian landowners, and the Cossacks were forcibly turned into serfs or resettled to the Kuban.

Differences from the Don Cossacks

Zaporozhian Cossacks	Don Cossacks
Democratic governance, elected leadership	Gradual integration into the tsarist system
Their own statehood (Hetmanate)	Never had statehood
Fought for independence from Moscow	Loyalty to the Moscow tsar
Orlyk’s Constitution (1710)	No constitutional traditions
Ukrainian/Rus identity	Russian identity
Destroyed by Catherine II (1775)	Integrated into the imperial army

The Cossack Legacy Today

The Cossack tradition is a key element of Ukrainian national identity. Cossackdom gave Ukraine:

• A tradition of democratic self-governance
• An example of the fight for freedom against empires
• One of the world’s first constitutional documents
• Symbolism that endures to this day (the Cossack cross, the Cossack anthem)
• A state-building idea — proof that Ukrainians are capable of building their own state

Attempts to appropriate the Cossack heritage and classify the Cossacks as part of “Russian Cossackdom” represent yet another rewriting of history in the service of imperial ambitions.