The Battle of Poltava has become one of the hottest topics of Ukrainian-Russian relations and discussions about a common history. For a long time, the name of Ivan Mazepa (one of the key characters in this historical episode) personified apostasy and betrayal. The unequivocal negative assessment of this character was hardly questioned both in tsarist and Soviet times. Unless from the side of very small ones
groups that had no public sympathy. However, the collapse of the USSR and the birth of national statehood in Ukraine and Russia provoked the emergence of new ideological views. The activities of Bogdan Khmelnitsky, the Battle of Poltava, historical portraits of Symon Petliura, Peter Skoropadsky and other personalities were completely rethought in the new Ukrainian historiography. This caused and continues to cause objections from the Russian side, where such a revision was considered a distortion of real events.
Battle of Poltava
Usually, the activities of Ivan Mazepa are presented as the story of a man who came to power thanks to the condescension of Alexei Mikhailovich. It is believed that he strengthened his influencethrough the patronage of Peter Alekseevich. However, during the Northern War, which was difficult for Russia, Mazepa went over to the enemy camp of Charles XII. In turn, modern Ukrainian researchers bring a number of significant details
into the picture of these relationships. Among others, there are facts about the plans of Peter I to reduce, and in the future completely destroy the hetman's self-government in Ukraine. Despite the fact that for the Cossack elite the treaty of 1654 was presented as an alliance of a suzerain and a vassal with the preservation of the wide liberties of the Cossacks, but by no means complete subordination. Ignoring the interests of the Ukrainian side in negotiations with the Polish king, who was promised part of the recently lost lands, also did not add to the popularity of the king.
The critical moment was the refusal of Peter I to provide military assistance to the Ukrainians at the time of the battles, when the Swedish units were already approaching the rapids of the Dnieper. There are many arguments for and against. Be that as it may, the Battle of Poltava (its date is June 27, 1709) was lost by the Swedes and Mazepa. And history, as you know, is written by the winners.
Meaning of national memory
Many people have ceased to believe in the national idea, because this term has become very often and inappropriately used by journalists and public figures in recent years. But the Battle of Poltava in 1709 did not lose its significance and remained very important for Ukrainians to gain self-identity and statehood. Because the foundation of any nation, apart from origin, common language and culture,is also historical memory: the unity of views of members of the national community on the events of the past, tragedies and victories, folk heroes. The central events of this collective memory form a model for the formation of a people's community.
For example, among modern Jews the model of the people-victim is realized. The central events of their history and the key to unity is the Holocaust and a number of other negative events that were experienced and overcome by the Jews. In turn, in the Soviet state and partly in modern Russia
one of the most important tools for uniting the nation is the glorification of the Great Patriotic War and victory in it.
For today's Ukrainian ideologists and people's leaders, it is extremely important to find common heroes for the whole country. Or create them. The latter is also quite acceptable and is often used. For example, Alexander Nevsky is a positive figure for any Russian person, even if he is not familiar with his deeds.
Despite the conclusions of modern researchers that the Battle of the Ice, obviously, did not have the same significance that Russian historiography attributed to it for a long time, the image is more important for the identity of the modern Russian nation than the actual events that happened in 1242. In the end, we still celebrate February 23, considering, in accordance with the public stereotype, its day of glory for the Red Army. Although according to the documents this is not so.
For example, Bogdan Khmelnitsky is one of the few heroes who is recognized by both Western and Eastern Ukraine,with different ideologies. But for the first, he is a fighter against national oppression, and for the second, against class oppression, as Soviet historiography made him. Interestingly, for the aforementioned Jews, he is an anti-hero at all, guilty of large-scale pogroms and murders of representatives of their people. So is the Battle of Poltava, which is important for both peoples rather as a symbol, rather than a real historical event, which gives rise to mutual misunderstanding.
