Ancient Sumy Land

25-49

Authors: Vlasenko V. M., Guzun V. PhD (History), Assosiate Professor, Sumy State University (Ukraine). ScopusAuthor ID: 563-3026-3000 PhD (History), Romanian Academy; Ministry of Foreign Affairs (Romania)

In three Balkan countries, Bulgaria, Romania and Yugoslavia, in the period between the First and Second World Wars, the national democratic environment, represented by the State Center of Ukrainian National Republic (UNR), was the most influential and numerous among Ukrainian political emigration. His representative in Romania was Professor K. Matsievich, the head of the extraordinary diplomatic mission of the UNR, Branch of the Ukrainian Society (supporters of the League of Nations and the Public Assisting Committee in this country). In 1939, V. Trepke, Deputy Chief of Public and Assisting Committee, became the member of the Government of the UNR in emigration. Representatives of the Government of the UNR in Bulgaria were M. Parashchuk and Ya. Malinovsky, representatives of the Minister of Military Affairs of the UNR (in exile) in Romania - Colonel H. Porokhivsky, in the Balkans (Bulgaria, Yugoslavia) and in Turkey - Lieutenant V. Fylonovych. Poland provided the financial support to the Government of the UNR in exile, its representatives and public organizations of emigration in recipient countries. The majority of members of the Government of the UNR at the time of emigration and before World War II were members of the Ukrainian Radical and Democratic Party (URDP) that has managed to build its network in Austria, Poland and Czechoslovakia in the interwar period. In Romania, it was represented first by K. Matsievich, and then by D. Levitsky. K. Matsievich was a member by the Central Committee, and in the 1930s he headed the Foreign Office. The periodical press of the party published articles of K. Matsievich about emigration in Romania. Offices of URDP did not exist in Bulgaria and Yugoslavia. USDP carried out its public political work through the Ukrainian Republican Democratic Club in Prague. It brought together representatives of different political environments, but most members were the radical democrats. In 1928-1931, K. Matsievich was the Chairman of the council, after 1931 - Deputy Chairman. In addition to social, political, cultural and educational actions of emigration, the Club was engaged in the employment of its members, graduates of Ukrainian high schools and immigrants, including in Romania. K. Matsievich led Labour Bureau that was specially created for this purpose. In exile, the government of the UNR was under the control of the Secret Brotherhood of Ukrainian Statehood. In Ukraine, it was headed by Academician S. Yefremov, in exile - Professor B. Ivanitsky. The Brotherhood had an organizational structure. In the mid-1930s, its local branches-communities opened in Warsaw, Bucharest, Kalisz, Lviv, Paris, Prague and Podebrady. The Brotherhood included more than 100 people, including Chairman of the Directory, all members of the UNR Government, representatives of the top military commanders of former UNR Army and prominent figures of the UNR emigration, I. Gavrilyuk, D. Herodot (Ivashina), K. Matsievich and V. Trepke (Romania). Representatives of the national democratic environment of Ukrainian emigration in South-Eastern Europe participated in conferences of the Ukrainian Chief Emigration Council in 1929, 1932 and 1934 in Prague. D. Herodot, K. Matsievich and V. Fylonovych were members of the administrative board. The leader of Ukrainian political emigration in Romania K. Matsievich collaborated with Ukrainian Scientific Institute in Warsaw (UNI-W), which supported and substantiated the ideas of the UNR. In 1930-1931, he led the economic seminar of the Institute. At the meetings, he delivered reports and published scientific works about Ukrainian emigration in Romania. In 1930 and 1931, V. Trepke made two expeditions, with the material support UNI-W, to determine where Ivan Mazepa stayed in Romania. The most active and united adherents of the idea of the UNR were in Romania, where the Public and Assisting Committee united representatives of different political camps. In Bulgaria and Yugoslavia, its supporters headed a number of public organizations, but internal disputes gradually led to the loss of influence in the emigre environment. Keywords: Bulgaria, Brotherhood of Ukrainian Statehood, the State Center of the UNR, political environment, Romania, Ukrainian emigration, Ukrainian Radical and Democratic Party, Ukrainian Republican and Democratic Club, Yugoslavia.

59-67

Authors: Goncharenko L. L., Kobaka K. Yu. PhD (History), Assosiate Professor, Sumy State Pedagogical University named after Makarenko (Ukraine) Master of history, Sumy State Pedagogical University named after Makarenko (Ukraine)

The article analyzes the events of Russo-Turkish war of 1787-1791 and the position of the UK and the Cabinet of William Pitt the Younger in resolving this conflict. Special attention is paid to the British diplomatic relations of Kingdom with other European states that were related to the war and directly the influence of William Pitt the Younger to international relations of the United Kingdom. In 1783 at the age of 24 William Pitt the Younger became British Prime Minister. Young Prime Minister believes that his main task in foreign policy is British withdrawal from the state of political isolation. For decrease the Russian Empire and active dissemination of British goods to the Russian market William Pitt the Younger pushed the Ottoman Empire to the war with Russia. Due to the failed beginning the Russian Empire in the early period of war and coordination of the Turkish side actions with Britain the importance of London is growing rapidly in international relations. The key importance in the confrontation between the Russian and British empires took Ochakiv problem, because strong fortresses such as Ochakiv, Bendery and Ackerman were on this territory. A country that owned this territory could easily control the mouth of the three largest water communications in Eastern Europe - Dnieper, Dniester and Bug. Definitely, the main task of William Pitt the Younger was to prevent the transfer of the territory under the rule of the Russian Empire. Ochakiv problem was the starting point for solving other international problems, such as the requirement of Prussia to transfer Danzig and Torun, political autonomy Danubian principalities, the fate of the Polish state and so on. So there is no wonder in anti-Russian policy of London, which is currently entirely dependent of the will of William Pitt the Younger. But, thanks to the military genius Alexander Suvorov, Ochakiv was taken and British-Russian confrontation ended in favor of the Russian Empire. In 1790 a vivid manifestation of William Pitt the Younger in international European contradictions was intervention in the Austro-Prussian conflict with the aim of removing Austria from the Treaty with the Russian Empire. As a result Russia was alone in the war against Turkey and its ally Sweden. But, again thanks to successful military actions and international relations Russians captured the fortress of Izmail (the key to the Balkans) and made peace with ally of Turkey Sweden. These events were for the British Prime Minister only the catalyst to the beginning of an open confrontation with Russia. Moreover, most of all William Pitt the Younger feared that Turkey’s position was threatened. March 22, 1791 British cabinet convened its extraordinary meeting where it was approved the text of the ultimatum to Russia and it was decided to send in the Baltic Sea to the Russian coast 36 battleships and the same number of frigates, and for direct assistance to Turkey in the Black Sea 10 or 12 battleships. But this policy of William Pitt the Younger met fierce resistance in parliament. This is explained by the fact that the UK received from the growing Baltic trade with Russia the huge benefits, and the gap with Russia threatened their loss. Seeing as it melts advantage in parliament and what public resonance was caused by the preparation for war, the Prime Minister announced Berlin court that the British fleet will not come to the Baltic Sea and simultaneously withdrawn the ultimatum the British Crown to St. Petersburg, which had not been given the Russian Empress Catherine II yet. And though the British Prime Minister lost the confrontation with Russia, his main goal in foreign policy, especially the removal of the UK from the state of political isolation completely fulfilled. Due to the efforts of William Pitt the Younger Great Britain began to play a significant role in the events that occurred on the European continent. The Prime Minister very quickly managed to regain the prestige in the international arena, which was lost after the defeat in the war with the American colonies. Key words: Great Britain, William Pitt the Younger, Russian Empire, the Ottoman Empire, war, politics, international relations, Ochakiv problem.

78-96

Authors: Korol S.M. PhD (in Political Science), senior lecturer of Philosophy, Sociology and Innovative Social Technologies Department of Sumy State University (Ukraine)

The author made an attempt to analyse the publication of Ukrainian scientists devoted to cross-border cooperation in the Central Europe region in the late XX - early XXI cent. Euroregions became the main and most common kind of cross-border cooperation during the post-socialist period. Western Ukraine belongs to the Baltic-Black Sea axis of Euroregional partnership. 5 Euroregions were created on the south-western borders of Ukraine: “Carpathian Euroregion” (Ukraine, Poland, Slovakia, Hungary and Romania), “Bug” (Ukraine, Poland, Belarus), “Upper Prut” (Ukraine, Moldova and Romania), “Lower Danube” (Ukraine, Moldova and Romania) and “Dniester” (Ukraine and Moldova). The theme of cross-border relations in the Central Europe region is relevant and interesting for the Ukrainian scientists. Now researches of political, economic, organizational, legal and environmental aspects of local Euroregions are dominated in the historiography of the issue. These works often have practical value and contribute to the search for ways to improve good-neighborly cooperation on the border. Recently, there are increasing retrospective scientific works. Ukrainian researchers used laws, international treaties and current documents in the public domain, as well as the official statistical materials and periodicals data as the primary sources for studying this theme. Keywords: cross-border cooperation, Central Europe, «Carpathian Euroregion», Euroregion “Bug”, Euroregion «Upper Prut», Euroregion «Lower Danube», Euroregion «Dniester», historiography.

98-107

Authors: Kocharyan S. G. PhD (History), I.P. Kotlyarevsky Kharkiv National University of Arts, Associate Professor at the department of Social Sciences (Ukraine)

This article deals with the national and cultural renaissance of Kharkiv Armenians in 1989-2004. During the last years of the existence of the Soviet Union and in the beginning of the epoch of independence of Ukraine favourable conditions were created for the national and cultural development of all nations, which lived on its territory. The above fact concerns Ukrainian Armenians too, particularly in Kharkiv. Beginning from the end of 1980s there was a steady rise in the number of public national organizations, which cooperated with state and local government bodies, with increases in the number of their members, levels and range of cultural and other events, organized by them. The Builders’ Palace of Culture was the centre of the cultural and social life of Kharkiv Armenians at that time. Foundation of new national Armenian organizations began almost after a 50-year break. The founding meeting of the Kharkiv Society of Armenian Culture took place in December of 1989. Sections of history, culture and public education were set up. The famous composer and song writer Anatoly Azatovich Chilutyan was elected the Head of the Society [15]. The first Board of the Society also included the People’s Artist of Ukraine A. S. Barsegian, academician V. A. Petrosov, Professor I. K. Terzian, Associate Professor Sh. Sh. Aramishyan and O. Ye. Miroyan [3]. On January 1, 2011 there were 63 organizations in Kharkiv. It is impossible to imagine the whole picture of the city’s development without studying the history of national communities of Kharkiv. The erection of the Armenian Temple in Kharkiv was the key event, and this Temple became a centre of life for the community. Our analysis of historiography has revealed that there are no special researches in this subject. Some aspects of this range of problems are touched upon by authors of popular science sketches, published in the book The First Capital (2007) by Kevorkian K. E., as well as in the collected articles Multiethnic Kharkiv. The research was based on such sources as materials of periodicals, official sites of Armenian organizations as well as materials of oral history (interviews). By the results of our study we created the following periodization in the history of Kharkiv Armenians in 1989-2004: 1) 1989-1994 - renaissance of their national and cultural life, appearance of the first organizations, functioning of an Armenian Sunday school and an Armenian club; 2) 1995-1999 - absence of any Armenian school, parallel existence of several Armenian organizations; 3) 2000-2004 - a new revival in the activity of the Armenian community, opening of a Sunday school, publication of their own newspaper, organization of a dance company, erection of a national temple. The results of this study can be used in subsequent researches in the history of the Armenian community of Ukraine, in the process of writing summary works on the history of ethnic minorities in Kharkiv and Ukraine, during preparation of textbooks and manuals on the history of Ukraine. Key words: Armenians, Kharkiv, community, church.