Memorandum to the Government of the United States on the Recognition of the Ukrainian People's Republic

In Short

This text is a formal memorandum presented to the United States Department of State in 1920 by a representative of the Ukrainian People’s Republic. It functions as both a historical defense of Ukrainian national identity and a modern political manifesto, arguing that the region is a distinct, self-sustaining, and essential entity. By detailing the country’s ancient roots and its desperate need for sovereignty against the competing interests of Russia and Poland, the document provides a primary-source look into the geopolitical struggles that shaped Eastern Europe following the collapse of imperial power.

The Story

The narrative begins in the spring of 1920, a time when the status of territories formerly belonging to the Russian Empire remained in dangerous flux. As the representative of the Ukrainian government, the author frames the document as a necessary duty to inform the United States Secretary of State of the "just claims" of the Ukrainian people. The argument is structured as a legal and moral brief: Ukraine is not a mere province or a subset of Russia, but a unique, "group-conscious" race with a continuous history.

The story of the nation is traced back to the ninth century, when the state of Kiev served as the intellectual and political center of Eastern Europe. The author chronicles the subsequent decline of this autonomy, noting the devastating impact of Mongol invasions and the later, centuries-long struggle against Polish and Russian expansionism. The text details the 1654 confederation with the Czar of Muscovy—a treaty that promised autonomy but led, instead, to systematic oppression. The reader follows the slow erosion of Ukrainian freedom: the abolition of the "hetman" office, the suppression of language and literature, the destruction of the Cossack military tradition, and the imposition of serfdom.

However, the trajectory of the argument shifts with the arrival of the nineteenth century and the growth of national consciousness. The author portrays this era as a "renaissance," where the spirit of democracy and cultural revival aligned to challenge the Russophile bureaucracy. The narrative builds to the tumultuous events of 1917, when the Ukrainian Central Rada proclaimed independence, and the ongoing, grueling conflict against both Bolshevik and anti-Bolshevik forces.

The argument then pivots to economic reality. The author systematically dismantles the notion that Ukraine cannot exist without Russia, providing data on the country’s vast natural resources—its "black earth" grain fields and rich mineral deposits. He argues that the myth of Russian dependency on Ukrainian resources is a facade used to justify continued exploitation. The memorandum concludes by positioning a free Ukraine not as an isolated state, but as a potential anchor for stability. By rejecting the "partition" of the land between neighboring powers, the author contends that the recognition of the Ukrainian People's Republic is a moral necessity and an essential step toward lasting peace, aligning the nation’s survival with the democratic principles famously championed by President Woodrow Wilson at the time.

How It Unfolds

The Diplomatic Mandate The author establishes his authority as a representative of a sovereign government seeking recognition. He explicitly links the necessity of this recognition to the broader, unsettled state of post-war Eastern Europe.

The Historical Foundation The argument moves to the origins of the Ukrainian people, identifying them as a distinct racial and cultural unit. He cites scholars, including Russian academics, to refute the claim that Ukrainian is merely a dialect of Russian.

The Era of Loss The text chronicles the betrayal of the 1654 treaty and the subsequent century of systemic Russification. This section highlights the deliberate suppression of the Ukrainian language, administrative autonomy, and the peasantry.

The National Reawakening A shift occurs as the author describes the nineteenth-century revival of arts, education, and political activism. He frames the struggle for independence as a long-term movement that reached its peak in the revolutionary activity of 1917.

The Economic Defense The author provides a detailed inventory of Ukraine’s exports and agricultural capacity to prove its viability as an independent state. He debunks claims that Russia requires Ukrainian coal or grain for its own survival.

The Final Appeal The memorandum concludes by addressing the geopolitical fear of German influence and the practical need for international support. It presents the "plebiscite of blood"—the ongoing war—as the ultimate validation of the people’s will to remain free.

The People

The document centers on the Ukrainian people as a collective actor, defined by their persistent desire for self-determination. They appear as a "group-conscious" entity, distinct from their neighbors, whose history is marked by a thousand years of labor and struggle.

General Petlura emerges as the figurehead of the current government, representing the resistance against both Soviet forces and internal invaders. He is presented as the legitimate leader of a republic that the masses have consistently supported, even during periods of extreme hardship and blockade.

The Russian Czarist and Soviet officials appear as the antagonists, characterized by a static, hostile policy of repression and assimilation. The author portrays these powers as exploiters who seek to maintain control over the "granary" of Europe to serve their own imperial or ideological agendas.

Bohdan Khmelnitsky represents the historical ideal of the Ukrainian leader; his leadership in 1648 highlights the historic desire for a sovereign, constitutional state. His failure to secure lasting peace with the Czarist regime serves as a cautionary tale for the modern author. Finally, the "friends of Ukraine" in the West are addressed as the intended audience—those capable of recognizing that the stability of the region rests on the existence of a free, independent Ukrainian state, rather than a territory subjected to foreign masters.

In Its Own Voice

The author highlights the inherent differences between the cultures of the region to counter the idea that the two nations are one:

"Between Ukrainians and Russians," says Sir Donald Mackenzie Wallace, a learned student of Russia, "there are profound differences of language, customs, traditions, domestic arrangements, mode of life and communal organizations."

The author provides a reminder from the Russian Imperial Academy of Sciences that the two languages evolved along separate, independent paths:

"The historic life of the two peoples failed to develop a common language for them."

What It's Really About

The central theme is the right of a distinct, historical nation to self-determination in a world dominated by imperialist ambitions. The document treats sovereignty not as a gift from great powers, but as a fundamental right grounded in history, language, and economic self-sufficiency. Underlying the political arguments are questions about the validity of colonial-style administration: can a nation be truly free if it is treated as a resource hub for its neighbor? The text asks whether the international community will prioritize the "balance of power" through the creation of new, independent states, or whether it will allow the old, destructive cycle of annexation and subjugation to continue at the expense of human liberty.

Why Read It Today

Readers interested in the history of Eastern Europe or the origins of modern national identity will find this a vital document. It offers a clear, unapologetic articulation of Ukrainian statehood from the perspective of those who fought for it in 1920. The language is formal, precise, and occasionally stiff, reflecting the diplomatic conventions of the early twentieth century.

The modern reader should be aware that the text is a product of its time, written during a desperate, violent conflict; it is not a neutral history, but a targeted argument for recognition. It contains references to long-forgotten territorial disputes, such as the status of the "Zaporogian Sitch," which require a basic familiarity with the geography and history of the region to fully appreciate. However, the themes of self-reliance, the struggle against disinformation, and the desire to break free from the hegemony of larger neighbors remain as resonant today as they were a century ago. The document does not shy away from the brutal reality of war, describing the "plebiscite of blood" as the truest test of national will. It serves as a poignant reminder that the quest for autonomy is rarely a smooth path, but one forged through persistent, often painful, resistance.