The foreign policy of the Ukrainian People's Republic directorate through the prism of cooperation with the Entente

Размещено на http://www.allbest.ru/

University of Montpellier

University of Bordeaux

The foreign policy of the Ukrainian People's Republic directorate through the prism of cooperation with the Entente

Lisa Merio

Alain Lemonier

Abstract

The relevance of the article lies in the need to study the topic of the peculiarities of the functioning of the Directory of the Ukrainian People's Republic and its international policy with the countries of the Entente and Europe, because in recent years access to new archival documents from the times of the Ukrainian Revolution of 1917-1920 has opened. The purpose of the research work is to analyze the aspects of creation and management of foreign policy of the UNR Directorate, in particular V. Vinnichenko and S. Petliura, taking into account the specifics of cooperation with the Entente countries, as well as the determination of the achievements and losses of the Directorate, which influenced the creation of the Ukrainian state. Research methods were used in the work, namely: chronological, historical, and analytical methods. Ukrainian and foreign historiography was analyzed, which described aspects of the foreign policy activity of the Directorate of the Ukrainian People's Republic, highlighted the greatest achievements during the conduct of foreign policy and the peculiarities of the Directorate's struggle for the liberation of the Ukrainian people and the recognition of Ukraine as a state by Europe and the world as a whole. The results of the study are the determination of specific actions by the Directory that led to the recognition of the Ukrainian People's Republic, namely the establishment of rights and laws for the population. It was established that the authorities did not have a specific example from the side of running the state, which explains the use of erroneous policies by the leadership, and despite all the problems created on the way to the creation of a new state, the result of such work was the formation of a clear structure of diplomacy and the recognition of the Ukrainian People's Republic. The practical significance of the results obtained in the research lies in their use to continue learning about the topic of the formation and work of the Directory, as well as the movements of national diplomacy during the creation of state entities and the creation of Ukraine. The results of the study can serve as a basis for creating analytics regarding Ukraine's foreign policy and possible prospects for cooperation with neighboring countries

Key words: foreign policy, state, negotiations, strategic course, political parties, cooperation

Анотація

Ліза Меріо

Університет Монпельє

Ален Лемонье

Університет Бордо

Зовнішньополітичний курс Директорії УНР через призму співпраці з Антантою

Актуальність статті полягає у необхідності вивчити тему особливостей функціонування Директорії Української Народної Республіки та її міжнародної політики з країнами Антанти та Європи, адже з останніми роками відкрився доступ до нових архівних документів часів Української Революції 1917-1920 рр. Метою дослідницької роботи є аналіз аспектів створення та ведення зовнішньої політики Директорії УНР, зокрема В. Винниченка та С. Петлюри, враховуючи специфіку співробітництва з країнами Антанти, а також визначення досягнень та втрат Директорії, що вплинули на створення української держави. У роботі було використано дослідницькі методи, а саме: хронологічний, історичний, та аналітичний методи. Було проаналізовано українську та зарубіжну історіографію, в якій описувались аспекти зовнішньополітичної діяльності Директорії УНР, виділено найбільші досягнення під час ведення зовнішньої політики та особливості ведення боротьби Директорії за визволення українського народу та визнання України як держави з боку Європи та світу в цілому. Результатами дослідження є визначення конкретних дій з боку Директорії, які призвели до визнання Української Народної Республіки, а саме встановлення прав та законів для населення. Було встановлено, що влада не мала конкретного прикладу з боку ведення держави, що пояснює використання керівництвом помилкової політики, та попри усі утворені проблеми на шляху створення нової держави, результатом такої праці стало формування чіткої структури дипломатії та визнання УНР. Практичне значення отриманих у дослідженні результатів полягає у їх використанні для продовження пізнання теми становлення і роботи Директорії, а також рухів національної дипломатії при створенні державних утворень та створення України. Результати дослідження можуть слугувати базою для створення аналітики стосовно зовнішньої політики України та можливих перспектив у співробітництві з сусідніми країнами.

Ключові слова: зовнішня політика, держава, переговори, стратегічний курс, політичні партії, співробітництво.

Introduction

The revolution of 1917-1920 is considered to be one of the outstanding periods that occurred in Ukrainian history. Nowadays, researchers have been able to study the military and domestic politics of the time almost thoroughly, but the question of foreign policy and the features of the management of a future independent state by prominent conductors remains open. Notably, after the restoration of Ukrainian independence, more and more historians began to study the period of the Directorate's activity, and the features of S. Petliura's leadership in the UPR, where one part of the scientists recognised the politician as a fighter for the freedom of the Ukrainian people and a wise leader, while another part of the researchers considered him an unrealised dictator and the worst leader who led the Ukrainian people [1].

The foreign policy pursued during the Directorate's reign had an impact on the national liberation struggle for the freedom and independence of the Ukrainian people. In addition, for a more detailed and comprehensive examination of the foreign policy of the UPR Directorate, it was essential to consider the military, political and social aspects, which were of great significance in the establishment of international relations.

The political activity of the UPR Directorate is of great interest to researchers of modern times, as everyone is trying to demonstrate the policy of the young state from various angles. The scientists who were interested in the political structure of the UPR in 1918-1920 include І. Matyash [2], who studied the specific features of diplomacy of the UPR in the revolutionary era and analysed attempts to establish the processes of development and implementation of diplomacy of the same period; T. Rendyuk [3], who in his study described in detail the specific features of relations between the UPR and Romania, considering diplomatic relations; N. Kravchenko [4], in her work, studied the specific features of the establishment of the UPR diplomacy, which became the protection of Ukrainian statehood and independence, and identified the main achievements of the Ukrainian Revolution era, which became support in the establishment of an independent state; K Kondratyuk [5], who in his scientific work explored the diplomacy of the UPR, which established the fundamentals of Ukrainian nationality; M. Stakhiv [6] was able to explore and highlight the specific features of the establishment of international relations of the UPR with neighbouring countries step by step and noted that disputes between members of the Directorate had an adverse impact on the development of foreign policy; О. Kropyvko [7], who in his scientific work explored the diplomacy of the UPR, which established the foundations of Ukrainian nationality; O. Kropyvko [7] in her scientific article highlighted the legal specifics of conducting the policy of the UPR, and identified the principle of multi-vectors in conducting the state, which has been observed since the establishment of the UPR until the establishment of the Constitution in 1996; V. Pylypov [8], who devoted his research to the development of Ukrainian diplomacy during the years of the Ukrainian liberation struggle for the freedom of the people and noted that the establishment of well-defined diplomacy was an essential step in the Ukrainian revolution.

Among foreign researchers who examined the subject of the UPR Directorate and its foreign policy activities, one can identify M. Dornfeld and Е. Seewald [9], studied in their work the political and economic relations between the UPR, Germany, and neighbouring countries of the UPR. These studies should be considered, but they cannot fully explore the essence of the subject, and elaborate on important details that could affect the position of the Directory and its relations with the Entente countries. In addition to the use of literary sources, information from the documentation of the Directorate and political institutions of the Entente countries and Europe was considered, which allowed exploring the specific conditions of cooperation of the UPR in the international aspect.

The main purpose of the research is to analyse the specific features of the establishment of the Directorate and its policy during the leadership of S. Petliura to establish strong and friendly relations with neighbouring countries, including the Entente, to implement a well-defined international policy, to improve the situation of the UPR, and to recognise the Ukrainian Republic as an independent state at the official level. In addition, significant events that influenced the further development of international relations were highlighted, and the positive and adverse consequences of the Directorate's activities that could affect the position of the UPR and political relations with other countries were considered. The novelty of the research is the consideration of the specific features of the UPR Directorate's foreign policy towards the Entente countries and Europe, and the establishment of events in international politics that influenced the situation of Ukraine in 1917-1920, based on new sources and scientific works, and new archival sources that were previously not available for research.

Materials and Methods

The source base of the study was the research of scientists, including I. Matyash [2], T. Rendyuk [3], N. Kravchenko [4], K. Kondratyuk [5], M. Stakhiv [6], O. Kropyvko [7], V. Pylypov [8], Ya. Popenko [10], О. Boyko [11], V. Solovyova [12], etc., and documentation of the Directorate, which was established during the development of relations and cooperation with other countries, and other legal documents of strategic importance to the Directorate, namely the document establishing the Directorate of the UPR [13], the Declaration of the Directorate of the Ukrainian People's Republic [14], the “Law on the Establishment of the General Secretariat of International Affairs” [15], and the Bessarabian Protocol [15].

The issue of interpreting the events and facts of the history of 1918-1920, and the specific features of the development of the foreign policy of the UPR has interested historians and researchers for many years, as every year scientists have access to significant new documents and other historical literature of those times, which can fundamentally change the development of conclusions about the activities of the Directorate, which was closed to all and kept in the archives. Currently, there are USSR archives, which contain documents of the UPR years, access to which is impossible and prohibited for any purpose, which excludes the possibility of learning the political aspect of the early 20^th century.

To provide a structured and thorough knowledge of the subject, the study chronologically describes the stages and specific features of the establishment of the UPR Directorate, its leaders, in particular S. Petlyura, and their main thoughts from 1918-1920; it analyses the Directorate's foreign policy activities, related political movements, and cooperation with neighbouring countries and the Entente.

Results

The Directorate was established as the new main state authority of the Ukrainian People's Republic in November 1918 [13], which came to power after the overthrow of the Hetmanate in the same year. Headed by the leaders of Directorate B. Vynnychenko, S. Petliura, and other members of the UPR Directorate (Table 1), the main objective of the Directorate was to find allies to reach a new level in the international arena and to assist in the fight against the Bolshevists for the independence of the Ukrainian Republic. At the beginning of the new government's functioning, the decisions made by the Rada demonstrated a divergence in opinions on the management of foreign policy: V. Vynnychenko, from the beginning of his leadership, supported the development of Ukraine in the socialist trend, while S. Petliura tried to get closer to European countries and improve the position of Ukraine in the international arena [10].

Table 1. Members of the UPR Directorate

Source: [16]

On 26 December 1918, the Directorate officially issued its first Declaration [14], which declared that in terms of international relations, the UPR Directorate was prepared to maintain neutrality towards any state, and demonstrate its peaceful intentions towards them, thereby demonstrating to neighbouring countries the possibility of cooperating with the UPR. With the Declaration, the government faced difficult problems, which were designed to obtain good-neighbourly relations with Eastern Europe and to continue peace on the borders of the states [17]. Consequently, on 26 January 1919, the independent Ukrainian Social Democrats established a separate declaration, which declared that the Workers' Congress had to deal with the members of the Directorate in the short term and transfer all power to the workers' deputies and was able to proclaim the independent Ukrainian Socialist Republic. On the international relationship side, the Social Democrats proposed the establishment of peaceful relations with Socialist Russia to further the withdrawal of Entente forces from Ukrainian lands [11]. The Directorate's desire to enter the international arena was quite divergent from European democracy's thoughts on the governance of the Ukrainian Republic, for such movements were similar to the early decisions of the Central Rada, which during its reign had tended towards declaring independence and pursuing a demilitarised policy. V. Vynnychenko, who perceived the Central Rada's ways of governing the state as necessary to continue, further developed good relations with Russia. ukrainian republic entente

Negotiations of the Directorate with representatives of the French government in Odesa were the first step towards the beginning of diplomatic relations with the Entente, where F.G. d'Anselm and G. Freidenberg declared the necessity to continue the fight against Bolshevist movements and to establish peace in the territory of the UPR and neighbouring countries [18]. In addition, during the negotiations, it was decided to sign a declaration of the UNR with the Entente, in which the main purpose was to establish cooperation with the Entente for the joint struggle against the Bolshevists, and the recognition of the independence of the UNR and the Entente countries. On January 21, 1919, new negotiations were held, headed by A. Nazaruk and S. Ostapenko, to reach an agreement with the French delegation on the new demands of both sides, which included: the deprivation of the power of V. Vynnychenko, S. Petliura, and V. Chekhivsky (who were considered representatives of the Bolshevist movement), and the reform of the Directorate; agrarian reform by the Entente, with the Ukrainian side assuming monetary compensation for those providing large plots of land for agrarian reform; the establishment of an army to be subordinated to the Entente; the transfer of the UPR's financial management to France while the fighting with the Bolshevists was conducted [12].

A new success for the UPR in negotiations with representatives of other countries' diplomacy was noted at a meeting of the UPR with all members of the Entente in Italy in early January 1919, where the Ukrainian side was headed by D. Antonovych. Notably, since the start of the mission, the Italians have been cautious about the Ukrainian diplomats and decided to allow them to visit Rome on the condition that there was no diplomatic activity. In addition, it was established that the Ukrainian delegation arrived in Italy without an invitation but only with the permission of the Consul in Kyiv. V. Mazurenko was warned by the Italian authorities that if they continued their diplomatic activities, which were designed for the recognition of the UNR by the Italians, Ukrainian diplomats could be expelled to Ukraine. Notably, the Italian Department of Foreign Affairs was informed about the attempt to urge the Italians to recognise Ukraine through local newspapers and publications, which caused excitement and a picky attitude towards Ukrainian diplomacy [19].

After the reform of the UPR Directorate to the government came S. Petliura and representatives of the government, who had the same views on the foreign policy of the Entente, which included S. Ostapenko, K. Matsiev- ich, A. Margolina ta T. Galipa, who continued negotiations with representatives of the Entente. During negotiations on 11 February 1919, the UPR and the Entente agreed to sign a decree, the essence of which was to introduce Entente troops into Ukraine to restore land, patriotism and law, and order in the country. After the decree was signed and the Entente agreed to perform the necessary actions, relations with European countries were established, and the course of the UPR towards Europe had clarity, as the government got rid of representatives with pro-Russian views, which affected the position of the UPR in the international arena [20].

As a result of positive developments in negotiations with French diplomatic representatives, a treaty was signed for joint military action against the Red Army, which was advancing from the southern coast of Ukraine, after which the military went to Odesa to defend it and liberate the southern territories of the UPR. However, on 27 March 1919, the representatives of the Council of Four of the Paris Peace Conference announced the obligatory withdrawal of the troops from the line of the UPR South, and on 6 April, the French-Greek army left the offensive positions due to heavy losses and not being able to fully resist the army of M. Grigoriev [11].

On 12 April 1919, in summary regarding military action in Ukraine, Marshal Foch said in a commentary: “To enable the UPR to free its territory and thus become a barrier against the advance of the Russian Bolshevists on Europe, it is essential to stop the Bolshevists on their approaches to Europe:

1. That the Allied powers (Entente) supplied the necessary ammunition through the single available route Constanza-Chernivtsi-Stanislav.

2. That the Allied powers recognised the independence of Ukraine and therefore added great moral strength to the UPR government and its army” [21].

Notably, propaganda in Poland indicated the Bolshevist intentions of Ukraine and named them as allies of Germany during the First World War, after which Eastern Galicia became part of the Polish Republic with the status of autonomy. The Russian Bolshevists used this propaganda to change the world's view of Ukraine, calling it enemies of the Entente, in particular emphasising S. Petliura's adverse intentions towards it. In July 1919, the Paris Peace Conference was conducted, which coincided with the dates of the diplomatic mission from Ukraine to Paris. Meanwhile, the question of the status of Eastern Galicia was being considered by the peoples of Austria-Hungary, to which the representatives of Galicia wanted the right of independence from representatives of international diplomacy, and, in parallel, tried to pursue appropriate policies that were designed to achieve the independence of Galicia. The result of the Galicians' actions was to split the French delegation, and the Ukrainian diplomatic mission to France was also adversely impacted. In addition, the protests and expressions of the Polish and Russians had a adverse impact, which caused damage to the Ukrainian diplomacy [22].

August 15, 1919 Ya. Olesitsky went to London on a mission to establish relations with the British and persuade them to mediate negotiations with the Volunteer Army, which in mid-August had reached left-bank Ukraine and was moving towards Kyiv. Notably, in the process of any meetings with Ukrainian diplomats, the British tried to avoid such dialogues where the problems of Ukraine were mainly discussed. As a result of the mission of Ya. Olesyt- skyi returned to Ukraine without resolving the issue, as the British side did not accept the diplomats. In November 1919, the head of the Ukrainian diplomatic mission was A. Margolin, who in January 1920 had a conversation with British Minister Balfour and other political activists. The main purpose of A. The main goal of A. Margolin was to maximise contact with the British government and to establish specific features in the conduct of their foreign policy to allow negotiations to achieve friendly relations between the countries and British recognition of Ukraine's independence [21]. In addition, in the same period, namely in the autumn of 1919, I. Sokalsky, who represented Ukraine in negotiations with representatives of the Kuban diplomacy, went to Tiflis with the question of the establishment of the Black Sea Federation. Subsequently, at the end of April 1920, the representatives of the UPR and Kuban conducted a meeting regarding the preservation of interests in the desire to recognise the independence of both sides and decided to sign a military agreement in which the parties agreed to jointly fight the Bolshevists [23].

Between Ukraine and Finland political ties were established during the reign of P. Skoropadskyi, but after Finland's leadership was established by K. Mannerheim, relations between the states received new prospects for cooperation and friendship, after which the Entente in May 1919 was able to declare Ukraine an independent young state [22].

The Ukrainian embassies in Berlin and Vienna, which had been operating there since the establishment of the Ukrainian state and which had great influence over other Ukrainian embassies in Europe, continued to operate during the rule of the UPR Directorate. Notably, the personnel of the embassies have been completely reorganised, as have their main functions. Ukrainian embassies in German and Austrian capitals attempted to do everything to gain confidence in Ukraine for continued partnership and cooperation and made efforts to ensure that neighbouring countries had a similar opinion, but this differed radically from the Ukrainian missions in Entente countries, where the main purpose was to recognise the UPR as an independent [24]. In addition, M. Porsch, who headed the consulate in Germany, did everything to improve relations between Berlin and Moscow to further establish relations between Germany and Ukraine for the sake of the joint struggle against the Bolshevists.

In November 1919, when A. Makarenka ta F. Shvets was sent abroad and the full management of the affairs of the UPR Directorate was entrusted to S. Petliura, who could now independently approve and enforce the new laws. On April 24, 1920, Petliura was able to conclude the secret treaty, known as the Warsaw Pact, which concerned the introduction of Polish forces on the territory of Ukraine and the establishment of the 15 thousand-man UPR army to continue fighting in the Polish-Soviet war, which ended in October 1920 with the victory of the Polish Republic and the UPR. Notably, the peace between Poland and the UPR ended in betrayal by the Polish, who during the signing of the Peace of Riga of March 18, 1920, which indicated the cessation of hostilities on all fronts from October 18, 1920, found common ground with Russia, thereby changing the attitude of Ukrainian diplomacy, with the Polish decision to ignore the demands of the UPR, and gave the previous ally under the authority of a stronger state [25].

On May 21, 1920, the Ukrainian government decided to recall A. Makarenka ta F. Shvets back, but the politicians did not return to Ukraine, due to which the Directorate was no longer a collective authority of the state, after which full control went to S. Petliura, who became the sole representative of the council on November 12, 1920, which can be considered the end of the Directorate rule [16].

After the Directorate collapsed, S. Petliura decided to continue his policy toward the West and the recognition of Ukraine as an independent state. S. Petliura continued to perform political actions in the UPR government, began to publish his thoughts on the current situation and possible prospects for Ukraine, and continued to defend his position concerning the Bolshevist movements. In January 1926. S. Petliura with the support of Yu. In January 1926. S. Petliura, with the support of J. Pilsudski, established the organisation “Prometheus”, whose activities were devoted to the peoples affected by the Bolshevists and their struggle against Soviet Russia, after which the Russians began to perceive S. Petliura as the main enemy of the country, and on May 25, 1926, a Bolshevist's agent killed the Ukrainian politician. Eventually, the Ukrainian state management was passed to A. Livytskyi [26].

Discussion

Based on the study of the foreign policy activities of the UPR Directorate, it can be stated that with the arrival of the new political council in Ukraine, the specific foreign policy and its areas have changed dramatically, and the development of the country began to move towards Western Europe, but not from the first time the main politicians managed to establish friendly relations with all neighbouring countries and the Entente, as the Directorate consisted of members-supporters of the socialist rule of Russia. After the establishment of the General Secretariat headed by V. Vynnychenko and the influential policy of O. Shulgin, official international missions were established after the signing of the “Law on the Establishment of the General Secretariat of International Affairs” [15], which was the push for many missions to European countries to acknowledge Ukraine, establish relations between countries and search for allies.

I. Matyash, in her monograph, noted that, first of all, the efficiency of Ukraine's missions abroad depended on the geopolitical situation and the domestic policy of individual countries after the end of the First World War [2]. In addition, the non-recognition of Ukraine's independence by the Bolshevists resulted in a necessity for the Entente and the Fourth Union to intervene in the struggle against the Bolshevist movement in Ukraine. In addition, the process of establishing friendly and cooperative relations was influenced by individual countries' attitudes to the rule and movements of imperial Russia and their desire to help Ukraine fight for its people's freedom. The same opinion was expressed by researcher N. Kravchenko in her work [4], where she described the necessity of liberating Ukraine with the help of neighbouring allied countries. In addition, while receiving assistance, reliable economic relations were established between the countries, which was a significant privilege to further develop cooperation and assistance to Ukraine in the war with Russia, followed by diplomatic connections with several neutral countries, which eventually resulted in a breakthrough and a movement to liberate the Ukrainians from the Bolshevist offensive. It can be agreed with this opinion, as the search for allied countries was necessary to resolve the UPR's conflicts with the Bolshevists and to recognise Ukraine as a separate, independent young state.

Only after a short period, the Ukrainian diplomacy managed to establish international relations with the countries of Europe, which were able to become allies for the UPR in the fight against the Bolshevists. Strong connections were established with the Entente, Great Britain, France, and partly Poland, which provided significant resistance in the Ukrainian-Russian war. The peaceful alliance with the Entente countries opened new opportunities for the UPR and its foreign policy towards Europe. According to M. Stakhov, after the negotiations in Odesa, the Entente, without warning or understanding of Ukrainian diplomacy, independently decided to send its troops to the south of the country, which the author recognised as a violation of international law [6]. Notably, if this was considered a hostile act by the Entente, then its further diplomatic relations with the UPR were escalated, which was not the case in reality, as the troops were acting according to a previously established military plan of action against the Bolshevists.

Regarding the UPR's relations with Romania, T. Rendyuk expressed in his study and noted that diplomatic ties between the countries were tense due to Romania's occupation of part of Ukraine [3]. Throughout the entire period of establishment of diplomatic relations Ukraine has been trying to protect the interests of the Ukrainian people, who were under Romanian rule. As a result of the resolution of the issue of Bessarabia, the Entente gave the land under the administration of Romania after the signing of the Bessarabian Protocol [15], which was a new way to resolve the outstanding issues of the Paris Peace Conference. Despite the occupation of Bessarabia, Dnieper, and Western Ukraine, representatives of the state continued to demand recognition of the independence of their people in the occupied territories.

A study of the general foreign policy activities of the Directorate by E. Kropivko in her research notes the great merit of A. Shulgin, in international negotiations with European countries, on behalf of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, implemented the purposes and objectives established by the Directorate at the negotiation stages with European diplomacy [7]. To this opinion should be added the merit of S. Petliura, who guided his people and council to Europe after the initial disagreements in opinions on the conduct of policy with V. Vynnychenko. As noted by V. Pylypnv in his work, the Ukrainian government considered Germany and Austria-Hungary to be its powerful allies and potential countries for the development of the UPR, despite the presence of supporters of Moscow's views [8]. Notably, it was this state of affairs and foreign policy that brought Ukraine to the international arena and cooperation with European countries, and the recognition of the independence of the UPR by them. In addition, the Entente countries and other allies of the UPR supported it in eliminating Bolshevist hostilities in the Ukrainian territories, which was the push for further development of relations with Europe. M. Dornfeld and E. Seewald, in their research, noted that the establishment of relations between the UPR and Austria-Hungary and Germany was complicated, as, in the arrangement of Ukrainian food supplies to these countries, the UPR could not fully provide them with the necessities, which was a prerequisite for the withdrawal of the UPR from the international arena [9]. Notably, such a problem did emerge for the European countries to consider, but as a result of correctly placed conservative negotiations between Ukraine and Europe, and the West's benefit in establishing the UPR as a strong state to continue exporting raw materials and products, the problem disappeared, and relations between the countries improved, as noted by K. Kondratyuk [5]. The conclusions on the establishment of qualitative connections should be supplemented by the common purpose of the European countries to strengthen and unite their armies to end the fight against the Russian Bolshevists, who had completely different views and refused to contact and negotiate, leading to new problems and hostilities on the territory of Ukraine.

Summarising all scientists' opinions on the foreign policy of the UPR Directorate, it can be stated that scientists are divided into two categories: the first includes those who consider all political actions of the Ukrainian government to be successful and designed for success and prosperity in Europe, while others are convinced that the actions of the Directorate were not clear-cut due to disagreements within the government, which contributed to new problems regarding foreign policy, finding allies against Bolshevists and acknowledging the independence of the UPR. Despite the different opinions of academics, it can be stated that these foreign policy actions improved the position of the UPR in the international arena and freed Ukrainian territory from Russian hostilities. It can be developed further by examining material concerning the international missions of the UPR by analysing sources from European countries, especially Entente member states, where a different opinion can be developed concerning the events of 1917-1920, and to examine in detail the intentions of countries towards Ukraine, namely neighbouring countries such as Austria-Hungary, Poland, and Russia, to explore in more detail the causes of conflict and to identify possible other developments and features of UPR international policy that could change relations between countries and counterbalance the diverging opinions of diplomacy between countries.

Conclusions

Despite all the events that occurred on the territory of European countries, in particular the Entente, the UPR continued to move towards the recognition of its independence. The UPR and the politicians of the Directorate during its prosperity were able to grant the Ukrainian people their rights and freedoms, begin to introduce aspects of self-government, and establish Ukrainian education and science, which was a great boost to the establishment of an independent state.

The main conclusions that were identified during the research on the subject are the following:

1. The beginning of the foreign policy of the UPR Directorate was hard work for the leading persons, as they had to deal with a legacy in which relations with countries were not established, which was the reason for the initial lack of policy with the Entente countries. The foreign policy aspect of the UPR with neighbouring countries was complicated, namely due to the outbreak of the Ukrainian-Russian war, Romania's desire to take Bessarabia into its composition, and the desire of the Polish Republic to occupy the western part of the UPR.

2. While governing the state and conducting domestic and foreign policy, the Directorate made big mistakes that did not allow the government to overcome adverse conditions to continue the struggle for Ukrainian independence. Party infighting and the different opinions of V. Vynnychenko and S. Petliura's conduct of the government interfered with the acceleration of future events. However, despite a lack of experience and examples of statecraft, the Directorate continued to extend its rights and took significant steps toward establishing a diplomatic structure.

3. After the beginning of S. Petliura's rule in the Directorate, foreign policy began to orient towards the West, after which a great accomplishment was the signing of the Warsaw Pact with the Republic of Poland. S. Petliura tried to establish friendly relations with neighbomng countries to conduct international policy activities and acknowledge the independence of the Ukrainian people.

The subject of the specific foreign policy of the UPR Directorate and its cooperation with the Entente countries can be studied further by analysing archival documents and the history of European countries where the Directorate may have appeared, which will help to consider the events of the Ukrainian Revolution from a different perspective. In addition, detailed studies can be conducted on events that influenced relations and cooperation between European countries, and the UPR during the First World War, which may have affected further relations between the countries and the conduct of policy by the European states and the UPR. For a better understanding of the actions that were performed in the Directorate headed by S. Petliura, V. Vynnychenko and other political figures, it is essential to study their biography in detail to establish the state power of those times and to analyse the political acprerequisites for the establishment of the highest body of tions of the Directorate, which were crucial in its history.

References

1. Shandro, V. (2022). Ambiguous figure or national hero. Retrieved from https://suspilne.media/36145-simon-petlura- neodnoznacna-postat-ci-nacionalnij-geroj/.

2. Matyash, I. (2019). Foreign missions in Ukraine (1917-1919): State mission and everyday life. Kyiv: Institute of History of Ukraine.

3. Rendyuk, T. (2020). Establishment and development of Ukrainian-Romanian relations in 1917-1923: Stages and figures. Diplomatic Ukraine, 19, 98-113.

4. Kravchenko, N.B. (2019). Ukrainian diplomacy of the era of the Central Rada as a tool for protecting statehood. In Ukrainian diplomacy in the era of national liberation struggles (1917-1921): History, problems, contradictions. Proceedings of the international scientific-practical conference, dedicated to the 100^th anniversary of proclamation Unification Act of the Ukrainian People's Republic and West Ukrainian People's Republic (pp. 24-25). Kyiv: Milenium.

5. Kondratyuk, K.K. (2018). Modern history of Ukraine 1914-1945. Lviv: Ivan Franko National University of Lviv.

6. Stakhiv, M. (1963). Ukraine in the age of the UNR Directory (Vol. 5). Scranton: Ukrainian Scientific and Historical Library in Scranton.

7. Kropyvko, O.M. (2019). Organizational and legal provision of foreign policy activities of the Ukrainian People's Republic (1917-1918). In Ukrainian diplomacy in the era of national liberation struggles (1917-1921): History, problems, contradictions. Proceedings of the international scientific-practical conference, dedicated to the 100^th anniversary of proclamation Unification Act of the Ukrainian People's Republic and West Ukrainian People's Republic (pp. 25-27). Kyiv: Milenium.

8. Pylypov, V.I. (2019). Formation of Ukrainian diplomacy during the period of national liberation struggles 1917-1921. In Ukrainian diplomacy in the era of national liberation struggles (1917-1921): History, problems, contradictions. Proceedings of the international scientific-practical conference, dedicated to the 100^th anniversary of proclamation Unification Act of the Ukrainian People's Republic and West Ukrainian People's Republic (pp. 33-35). Kyiv: Milenium.

9. Dornfeld, M., & Seewald, E. (2017). Deutschland - Ukraine. Hundred Jahre diplomatic relations. Arbeitspapier, 50, 62.

10. Popenko, Ya. (2014). Ukrainian-French political relations (1917-1921). Bulletin of the Kyiv National Linguistic University, 19, 5і-64.

11. Boyko, O. (2009). Change of governments and government policy of the Directorate of the National People's Republic of Ukraine in 1919. Ukrainian Historical Journal, 6, 35-47.

12. Solovyova, V. (2006). Diplomatic activity of Ukrainian national governments 1917-1921. Kyiv: Institute of History of Ukraine of the NAS of Ukraine.

13. Gai-Nizhnyk, P. (2020). Formation of the UNR Directory and formation of its military units during the anti-Hetman rebellion. Hileya: Scientific Bulletin, 156, 12-33.

14. Kushko, I., & Prylypko, R. (2020). The first steps of the Directory in December 1918 - January 1919 according to the memories of the revolutionaries. Scientific Notes of Vinnytsia Mykhailo Kotsyubynskyi State Pedagogical University, 31, 119-127.

15. Gumenai, I. (2018). Basarabia sub Dominafia (arista. Formele De protest impotriva anexarii Basarabiei de catre Imperiul Rus. New York: Algora Publishing.

16. Schus, O.Y. (2004). Encyclopedia of the history of Ukraine. Kyiv: Naukova dumka.

17. Vargatyuk, S.V. (2016). Conceptual principles of the foreign policy of the Directory of the Ukrainian People's Republic. Hileya: Scientific Bulletin, 115, 52-54.

18. Golovchenko, V.I. (2019). Ukrainian-Entente negotiations 1919. Retrieved from http://surl.li/dvgwi.

19. Vargatyuk, S. (2017). Negotiations of diplomatic representatives of the Directorate of the Ukrainian People's Republic with the command of the Franco-Greek landing force in the south of Ukraine. Hileya: Scientific Bulletin, 116, 35-39.

20. Landovsky, A.E. (2021). Constitutional principles of the autonomy of Subcarpathian Rus (1919-1938). Uzhgorod: Uzhgorod National University.

21. Yatsenyuk, H.M. (2019). The act of Zluka on January 22, 1919, through the eyes of a Galician diplomat (according to the memoirs of L. Tsegelskyi). Bulletin of Cherkasy University, 2, 52-62.

22. Datskiv, I. (2014). Ukrainian diplomacy of the era of the UNR Directory: Personalities, status, functions. Scientific Notes of the Ternopil Volodymyr Hnatyuk National Pedagogical University, 2(3), 125-135.

23. Lozhkina, A. (2020). Permanent revolution. Kyiv: ArtHuss Publishing House.

24. Hlebowich, A. (2021). Bitter peace. The 1921 Treaty of Riga. Retrieved from https://przystanekhistoria.pl/pa2/tematy/ english-content/79793,Bitter-peace-The-1921-Treaty-of-Riga.html.

25. Faizulina, Ya., & Livytsky, A. (2019). Correspondence (1919-1953). Kyiv: Phoenix.

26. Gai-Nizhnyk, P.P. (2009). Formation of central and local bodies of executive power in Ukraine during the days of the Central Rada (1917-1918). Kyiv: Ukrainian Agency for Information and Friend “Rada”.

Размещено на Allbest.ru