From Galician Rus' to Western Ukraine

Unofficial translation

Kirill Shevchenko, Doctor of Historical Sciences,
Professor of Russian State Social University

FROM GALICIAN RUS' TO WESTERN UKRAINE
GALICIAN-RUSSIAN FIGURES ON THE UKRAINIAN MOVEMENT
IN GALICIA IN THE 19th – EARLY 20th CENTURY

Eastern Galicia has traditionally been considered a stronghold of Ukrainian nationalism. However, it didn't acquire such an ethno-cultural identity until after the genocide of Galician-Russian activists unleashed by the Austro-Hungarian authorities during World War I. Even in the first quarter of the 20th century, Ukrainian identity was not fully shaped as such among Galician Russians. Researchers believe that at that time, half of the Galician peasantry did not possess a clearly expressed national identity in its modern sense and served as an object of struggle "for souls."[1] For example, in the town of Stanislav (now Ivano-Frankovsk), which was one of the centers of the Ukrainian movement in Eastern Galicia, the ethnonym "Ukrainian" began to replace the Rusyn endonym only after 1917."[2] At the same time, among the Galician-Russian intellectuals there was a widespread view of the local Rusyns as belonging to the triune Russian people "from the Carpathians to Kamchatka."

At the beginning of the 20th century in Austrian Lvov and in the 1920s-1930s in the already Polish Lvov, there were Russian-language newspapers that defended the idea of all-Russian unity of peoples of Great Rus' and Little Rus' and polemicized with Ukrainian nationalists. "The Russian People's Party in Galicia ... professes the national and cultural unity of the entire Russian people, and therefore recognizes the fruits of the millennia-old cultural work of the entire Russian people, taking into account the affiliation of the Russian population of Galicia to the Little Russian tribe of the Russian people"[3] – declared the Congress of the Russian People's Party of Galicia, held on 27 January (7 February) 1900 in Lvov. In the early 20th century, Galician public figures noted the spread of spontaneous "Moscophilia" sentiments among "the Russian common people of Galicia,"[4] "surpass the common people of Little Rus' and Great Rus' in the development of national consciousness, patriotism, and deep attachment to the Russian rite and Church." [5] Noteworthy, the activists of the Ukrainian movement also had to admit this, lamenting that Galician common people were "Moscophiles by nature."[6]

At the beginning of the twentieth century, a similar characteristic of the population of Galicia was given by famous Galician-Russian and Slavic figure Dmitry Vergun, who emphasized that "it has not lost the sense of belonging to the Russian world despite six centuries of estrangement from the Russian origins. Only a small handful of local semi-intellectuals, dependent in one way or another on the Vienna and Budapest governments, were captivated by the idea of national "Ukrainian" separatism. The separatist idea did not permeate the masses..."[7].

By historical standards, radical Ukrainian nationalism is a new ethno-cultural image of the ancient Galicia that suffered violations and desecrations during the bloody Austro-Hungarian terror of the Great War of 1914-1918. Centuries earlier, Galician Rus' remained the foundation stone of all-Russian ideology, giving birth to a great number of thinkers who justified the idea of all‑Russian unity and martyrs who laid down their lives in the struggle for these ideals. Aggression, cruelty, primitive thinking and acute mental deficiency of Ukrainian nationalists are a vivid manifestation of the "neophyte syndrome", which is well known to psychologists. It is the neophyte converts who are prone to extreme, sometimes brutal forms of proving their devotion to some new faith or idea they have adopted, which for the Galician neophytes became primitive and artificial doctrines of the Ukrainian nationalism. As noted by American researcher John Armstrong, the Ukrainian nationalism is distinguished from other varieties of "integral nationalisms" by a greater degree of totalitarianism, irrational mysticism, a hypertrophic cult of violence, war and terror, as well as a tendency to the imaginary and the far-fetched."[8]

In 1904, prominent representative of the Galician-Russian movement Osip Monchalovsky fiercely described the Ukrainian nationalism as "a betrayal of the Russian language and culture that have been developed over centuries, a self-transformation into intertribal misfits, in the rag for Polish and German boots...; a denial of the indigenous origins of their nation."[9] Notably, a prominent Czech politician and public figure, Karl Kramarz, similarly characterized the Ukrainian movement, emphasizing that in Austria-Hungary Ukrainian politicians from Galicia acted as a willing tool of Vienna and Berlin.[10] The great-grandfathers of today's Ukrainian radicals from Galicia called themselves Rusyns, hardly being aware of the existence of "Ukrainians" and perceiving themselves as an essential part of the triune Russian people. Although, as noted by Nina Pashayeva, the author of the first national monograph on the Russian movement in Galicia, the modern grandchildren and great-grandchildren of Galician Rusyns "would hardly want to remember their Russian grandfathers and great-grandfathers now."[11] Besides, it is worth mentioning that modern Galicians neither want, nor can remember their Russian ancestors. The Russian part of the Galician history, seen as highly dangerous information by the new Ukrainian political elite, has been thoroughly erased from textbooks, scientific literature, and public life by the bat-eyed and ruthless Ukrainian political and pseudoscientific censorship.

***

Whereas the activists of the Ukrainian movement sought to prove the separate existence of the Great Russians and Ukrainians as early as the Kievan Rus' era, trying to separate them in Old Russian history and literature, the Galician-Russian thinkers proceeded from the idea of the original unity of all Russian lands. Being patriots of Galicia, Galician-Russian figures emphasized the crucial role of Galicians in all-Russian history, noting that the Galician natives made a great contribution to the rise of the Principality of Moscow during the period of feudal fragmentation and the Mongol-Tatar yoke. The most famous one among them was Metropolitan Peter, a native of Galicia, who supported the unification policy of the Ivan I of Moscow in the second quarter of the 14th century and moved his see to Moscow, thus making Moscow the spiritual center of Russia. Galician figures perceived Peter's personality as one of the symbols of all-Russian unity, emphasizing that "Ivan Kalita's closest advisor was Peter, the first Metropolitan of Moscow, also called Peter of Rata, because he was born in what is now Galicia and lived above the Rata river..."[12] Rather symbolically, it was a Galician who stood at the origins of transforming Moscow into the ecclesiastical capital of the Russian lands.

The work of Metropolitan Peter was highly appreciated by the famous Galician-Russian figure Dmitry Vergun, according to whom, "the instinct of gathering the Russian lands, the need for tribal unity for the sake of preserving strength, is a distinctive feature of all the natives of Carpathian Rus', who took prominent places in the all-Russian culture... After the Tatar invasion, in the years of turmoil, out of all the progressive Russian people of that time, only Peter willfully called for the "gathering of the Russian lands." He ... reached out to Ivan l Kalita in Moscow and, having established the metropolitan see, laid the foundation of that movement which, in its further growth, led to the marriage of Ivan the Great to the heiress of the Byzantine throne and determined the mission of Moscow as the "third Rome."[13]

The Galician-Russian figures, when characterizing the status of Galician Rus' within Poland, which seized the Galician lands in the 1340s, emphasized that the policy of the Polish monarchs was aimed at "interrupting and destroying the links between the Russian subjects of Poland and the Russian people living in the Principality of Moscow, which at that time was emerging in the north, especially since the Russian subjects of Poland were the same in faith, language and writing as the Russian people of the Grand Duchy of Moscow… The Church Union concluded in Brest was also used for the same purposes."[14]

Representatives of Galician-Russian social thought emphasized the crucial role of the natives of Little Rus' in the development of Russian science and culture. Monchalovsky noted that Moscow, being the political center of free Rus', for a long time "was not the center of enlightenment" and "did not provide a suitable ground for the spread of education... ...The spark of the emerging enlightenment, which was later to affect Moscow as well, was initially fanned in the southwestern outskirts of Rus', which had partly fallen under Poland and Lithuania. The Orthodox brotherhoods, whose emergence was prompted by the persecutions of Poland and the Roman Catholic Church..., devoted all their moral efforts and material means to the spread of education and the establishment of schools."[15] Kiev and the Kiev-Mohyla Academy established by Metropolitan Petro Mohyla in 1631 had a special place in this activity. "The most enlightened people in the entire Russia "came out from this Academy... The results of this enlightenment were seen in the appearance of a number of figures among the Russian population of Poland and Lithuania... as well as polemical and theological literature written by them. The same Milieu brought out scientists who opposed the anti-national propaganda in southern Rus' and made their way to Moscow, laying the foundation of Russian educational literature."[16]

According to A. Miller, "the culture that we know today as Russian was created in the 18th – first half of the 19th century by the joint efforts of Russian and Ukrainian elites, if one can apply this term of later origin to this period; or, more precisely, by the efforts of the Great Russian and Little Russian elites. This common heritage is what Ukrainian nationalists, including Mikhail Grushevsky, who spent much effort criticizing the "traditional scheme of the Russian history" that emerged in Kiev, had to struggle with later."[17] Galician and Carpathian Russian scholars had a significant impact on Russian social thought and made a huge contribution to the conceptual development of the "traditional model of the Russian history", which was later fiercely fought against by the Ukrainian historians, the so-called managers of the "Ukrainian project." For instance, the historian Yuri Venelin (Hutsa), who stood "at the origins of Russian Slavistics, had a serious influence both on evolution of Slavistics in Russia and on individual scholars and writers, including Mikhail Pogodin, Konstantin Aksakov, Alexey Khomyakov, Osip Bodiansky, etc."[18].

Ukrainian ideologists presenting national revival supporters in Ugorian and Galician Rus' as champions of "the Ukrainian cause" is a vivid example of abuse of common sense and outright distortion of historical events.

In fact, Galician-Russian thinkers demonstrated that enthusiastic proponents of all-Russian unity determined the national revival in 1800-1830s in the Ugorian and Galician Rus'.

Denis Zubrytsky, whose name is associated with first manifestations of national revival of Galician Rusyns, was rightfully considered the leader of "the Russian movement", maintained contacts with Mikhail Pogodin, a Moscow State University professor and a well-known historian, and was an enthusiastic proponent of the Russian literary language as the language of "culture and science in Galicia." [19]

In his letter to Wenceslaus Hanka, , of 27 December, 1852 (8 January 1853), a well-known Czech public figure Denis Zubrytsky unequivocally advocated for the Russian literary language for all the branches of the Russian people.

"Like the Germans in Strasbourg, Dorpat, Zürich, and Hamburg write the same dialect and understand each other, the Russians have to write the only one dialect, firmly established and elegantly shaped,"[20] wrote Denis Zubrytsky in his letter to Wenceslaus Hanka, referring to the Russian literary language.

Nevertheless, the aspiration of the Galician-Russian intellectuals to accept the Russian literary language was not extraordinary back then. Similar ideas, in particular the idea of Russian as a common literary language of all Slavs, were expressed by other Slavic peoples as well, including the Croats, the Slovaks and the Czechs.[21]

Besides Denis Zubrytsky, the first stage of the national revival in Galicia was associated with Markiian Shashkevych, Ivan Vahylevych and Yakov Holovatsky who went down in the history of the Galician Rus' as "the Ruthenian Triad."

The literary almanac "Rusalka Dnistrovaia" ("Mermaid of the Dniester") that was published by the Ruthenian Triad in 1937 and became "a major milestone in the history of the Galician national revival," convincingly demonstrated distinct all-Russian motifs.

For example, the poem "A memory" by Markiian Shashkevych, published in the almanac, celebrated episodes from the all-Russian history, including the golden era of Yaroslav the Wise as well as the might and glory of Novgorod.

It is noteworthy that the content of the Rusalka Dnistrovaia almanac did not sit well with the Austrian officials.

As a result, the almanac was banned in Galicia and confiscated by the police and its authors were punished with expulsion from the Lvov Theological Seminary.[22]

Thus, the first manifestations of cultural and national activities of the Galician Rusyns in 1830s directly testified to their awareness of historical and spiritual unity of the Russian lands and their aspiration to base their cultural work on it.

Commenting on attempts of Ukrainian activists to illegally appropriate the heritage of the first Galician-Russian revival enthusiasts, Monchalovsky wrote that "Ukrainophiles like to make references to prominent figures who are already dead and turn them into opinion allies; conveniently, "the dead have no shame" and will not protest.

In Russia they turn Ivan Kotliarevsky into their ally, in Galicia – Markiian Shashkevych." [23] Meanwhile, according to Monchalovsky, the works of these writers and public activists have "no trace of Ukrainophile separatism."[24]

During the revolution of 1848, the Austrian administration had to rely on the emerging nationalist movement of Rusyns in Galicia to counter revolutionary movement of Galician Poles.

At the time, the Austrian authorities demonstrated their aspiration to counter all-Russian identity of Galician Rusyns in every possible way and encouraged their own unique identity.

During the meeting with Galician-Russian delegation in 1848, the then-Galician governor Count Stadion asked representatives of the Galician Rusyns "Who are you?" and – giving them a kind of a hint – said "if you considered yourselves Russian, I would not be able to help you."[25]

As the Rusyns were interested in the support from the government, they, responding to the governor, in order not to displease him and ensure support from Vienna, referred to religious differences and said that they were not Russian but "Ruthenes."[26]

Later, Ivan Naumovich, a prominent figure in Galician-Russian movement, expressed his regrets with regard to this episode, justifying it with pragmatic considerations of the Rusyns who had to tell the governor not something they wanted to tell but what he wanted to hear from them. At the time, according to Monchalovsky, "there were no parties in the Galician Rus' and no one even dreamt of the Ukrainophile party." [27]

Vienna's overtures with Rusyns, originated from tactical aims of the Austrian policy amid revolutionary turmoil, intensified significantly national activities of the Galician Rusyns that resulted in emergence of the Galician-Russian media and a number of national organizations. Specifically, the revolution of 1848-1849 saw the establishment of People's House and Galician-Russian Matice in Lvov that "together with Stauropegion Institute became cultural centers of the Russian movement for almost a century to come…"[28] Nevertheless, when the revolution of 1848 was suppressed and Vienna got back to the alliance with Polish szlachta in Galicia, the Galician-Russian cultural and educational organizations, established during the revolution, withstood and afterwards played an important role in the development of the Russian movement in Galicia. A decision to purge "the Galician-Russian dialect" from words of Polish origin and to converge it with the Russian literary language was made at the congress of the Galician-Russian intellectuals in Lvov in 1848.  

According to the Galician-Russian activists, the Ukrainian movement in Galicia was given a huge impetus by the preparation of the Polish Uprising of 1863. By that time the Polish politicians had seen that the policy aimed at Polonization of the Galician Rusyns and their further integration into the Polish society was counterproductive and attempted to turn the Galician Rusyns into a tool in the fight against Russia.

"In the early 1860s there were preparations for the Polish uprising of 1863. The Polish agents who wanted to involve the Galician-Russian youth into the uprising started to actively spread the idea of Little Russian separatism among them," wrote Monchalovsky. "To do so, "Dziennik Literacki" and other Polish newspapers printed Little Russian poems filled with hatred of "Moskwie", that is to Russia, and regrets for the deplorable fate of poor Ukraine-Rus'.

The Ukrainophile movement became significantly stronger after the uprising of 1863. Galicia were flooded with Polish immigrants from Russia and – what a coincidence – all of them turned out to be zealous Ukrainophiles."[29]

The Polish administration of Galicia actively facilitated the placement of Polish immigrants-Ukrainophiles in jobs in the local public, scientific and educational institutions where they tried to influence the sentiments among the Galician youth. For example, the viwes of Franciszek Duchiński about the fundamental difference between the Southern and Northern Rus' and the necessity of an alliance between the Poles and the Little Russians to "be liberated" started to circulate at the that time.

It is emblematic that it was in 1863 that "Meta", one of the first Ukrainophile newspapers in Galicia edited by Ksenofont Klymkovych, started to come out and immediately launched a campaign against the Russian galicians. "Meta" "published for the first time the song "Shche ne vmerla Ukrainy" ("Ukraine has not yet perished") that was a paraphrase of a well‑known Polish song "Jeszcze Polska nie zginela."[30] It is noteworthy that Alexander Dukhnovych, Adolf Dobryansky, Alexander Pavlovych and other activists from the Ugrian Rusyns took negatively the attempts to reform the Galician-Russian writing system and to create the Ukrainian literary language as dangerous separatism.

For instance, Adolf Dobriansky considered a separate literary language of Little Russia to be "a treacherous betrayal" not only to the Russian people but to the whole Greek and Slavic world. According to Dobriansky, "Southern Russian literary separatism may have killed some peripheral branches of Slavdom, weakened the Russian center and, consequently, would have become the avant-garde of Germanism in the fight with the Greek and Slavic world."[31] Dobriansky called the new literary language being created in Galicia "Russian-Polish" from which it "would not be difficult to switch to pure Polish."[32]

Over time the pro-Ukrainian sentiment in Galicia became stronger, which widened the gap between intellectuals of Galician and Carpathian Rusyns.[33] It is noteworthy that attempts of Ukrainian activists Volodymyr Hnatiuk and Mykhail Drahomanov to establish contacts with "brothers" Southward from the Carpathians at the end of the XIX century resulted in a disappointing embarrassment for them. The Ukrainian activists complained about extremely negative treatment from the Carpathian Rusyns. In his work "Rusyns in Hungary" published in the Czech magazine "Slovansky Přehled" in 1899, Volodymyr Hnatiuk regretfully concluded that a hallmark of the Ugorian Rusyns was Moscophilia that hindered, in his opinion, their national development.[34] While describing the Carpathian and Russian intellectuals Hnatiuk wryly noted that "their happiest memories are stories about the campaign of the Russian Army. They do it with a fire in their eyes, smiles and their faces lit up… They are convinced that al the Slavs have to become Russians."[35]

With the invention of the phonetic Ukrainian alphabet by Panteleimon Kulish (so called Kulishivka), which was made to oppose the Russian etymological spelling, the Austro-Polish ethno-cultural strategists obtained a new effective tool for isolating the Galician-Russian writing system from the Russian literary language, as well as for influencing the identity of the local population.

It is well-known that Panteleimon Kulish had a negative reaction to Poles using the phonetic alphabet made by him to deepen the cultural and linguistic divide between Little (Maloross) and Great Russians (Velikoross).

In his letter to well-known Galician-Russian figure Bogdan Deditskiy, Panteleimon Kulish openly said that watching this flag (Kulishivka) in enemies' hands he would be the first to hit it and renounce his work for the Russian unity' sake[36]

Nevertheless, the Polish managers of the "Ukrainian project" in Galicia sought to use in their interests not only the Ukrainian phonetic alphabet invented by Kulish, but also him as an inspiring leader of the Ukrainian movement in Russia.

Seeking to turn Eastern Galicia to the centre of the Ukrainian national movement transforming it from a cultural and linguistic to a political project, the Polish elite in Galicia offered Kulish to head the Ukrainian press in Galicia.

Describing the Polish community of the Eastern Galicia in the second half of 19th century, Adolf Dobriansky pointedly remarked that all Polish officials, professors, teachers, and even priests turned to language studies, particularly the Russian philology, rather than the Masurian or Polish ones, in order to create, with the help of our traitors, a new Russian-Polish language, from which the transition to pure Polish would no longer present any difficulty. [37]

In 1881, Kulish visited Lvov, where he negotiated with the Polish nobility of Galicia, including the Czartoryskis and Prince Adam Sapieha, on publishing the Ukrainian newspaper Hutor in Galicia and making Lvov the centre of the Ukrainian movement.

The Polish tycoons offered Kulish very favorable financial conditions.

Thus, Mr. Czartoryski promised to allocate 14,000 guilders for the Hutor newspaper, Mr. Sapieha – 6,000 guilders, Polish landowners promised to pay the Hutor subscription for their Russian villages.[38] However, it quickly became clear that Polish policymakers wanted to use him as a tool to destroy the Russian unity, and, outraged by Russian monasteries being transferred to the Jesuits, Panteleimon Kulish decided to leave Galicia and return to Russia.[39]

Thus, neither creator of the Ukrainian phonetic alphabet Panteleimon Kulish, nor well-known historian Nikolai Kostomarov, who stood at the origins of the emerging Ukrainian cultural movement, did not wish to transfer it to a political level and break with the idea of the Russian unity.

Once, in 1863, Nikolai Kostomarov became aware of Polish politicians' intentions to use Ukrainophilia to incite rebellion, and some Little Russians' readiness to jump at the Polish bait, he publicly called down curses on the heads of those conceiving the separation of Ukraine from Russia[40].

However, what Nikolai Kostomarov and Panteleimon Kulish refused to do, was later done by Mikhail Grushevskiy. The aim of his historical works was to justify deep civilizational differences between Southern and Northern Rus.

In 1898, Osip Monchalovsky said about the evolution of Ukrainian figures, "the current Ukrainophilia does not relate to the noble and natural Ukrainophilia of Kostomarov, Shevchenko, or Kulish...as, over time, under the influence of hostile to Russian people, but canny policy of its opponents, initially pure, literary Ukrainophilia expressed in love to their mother tongue and customs of Southern Rus, transformed to national and political sectarianism."[41].

The intensification of contradictions between Russian Galicians and Ukrainophiles was orchestrated by the Polish administration of Galicia in 1890, when after preliminary meetings with governor of Galicia Kasimir Badeni and Metropolitan Sylwester Sembratowicz, deputy of the Galician Diet Yulian Romanchuk announced a draft of a national-political agreement with the Poles called 'the New Era'.[42]

In his programme (plan) presented at the session of the Galician Diet on 13 (25) November 1890, Yulian Romanchuk announced exactly those provisions that were demanded by Kasimir Badeni.

The key provisions of the Romanchuk programme said, "we, Rusyns, are an independent nation, separate from the Poles and Russians, and, on this basis, we would like to promote our own identity and language.

We are loyal followers of the Greek Catholic church and its rites."[43] In fact, this programme implies breaking the connection between the tribe and the rest of the Russian world, and even separating the Galician Malorossians-Uniates from the Orthodox Malorossians in Bukovina, let alone Malorossians in Russia. [44] Russian Galicians were strongly against Romanchuk's theories, as they denied the idea of the Russian unity, which shaped the mindset of Galician Russophiles.

The Agreement between Galician Ukrainophiles and Poles, known as the "New Era", was marked by growing civilizational divide between Russian Galicians and Ukrainophiles relied on Vienna and Galician Poles.

As a result, the once consolidated "Russian club" in the Galician Diet was split, the whole Galicia faced hot political wars...with the persecution of those who was against "the programme".[45]

The release of the New era laid ideological grounds to fight against Russian Galicians and the Russian literary language in Galicia.

Since 1892, the Kulishivka phonetic alphabet became part of the Galician schools' curriculum replacing etymological writing system, which was traditional for Rusyns and allowed them to read fluently the books published in Russia.

However, introducing phonetic alphabet in Galicia was characterized by many difficulties.

Thus, in February 1893, the Galician Russian newspaper published in Lvov, "Galichanin", ironically noted that the Galician Ukrainophile newspaper "Dilo" used an etymological system in its columns yet sharply criticizing supporters of this traditional system and advocating phonetics.

The official introduction of phonetics launched a campaign of persecution of the Russian literary language.[46] Students of the Lvov Theological Seminary were forbidden to study it, their books published in the literary Russian language were taken away, student communities "Bukovina" in Chernovtsy and "Akademichesky kruzhok" in Lvov were closed..."[47] The hierarchs of the Greek Catholic Church of Galicia, including Metropolitan Sylwester Sembratowicz, a humble servant of Count Badeni, took an active part in the fight against the Russian literary language.[48] It was Sylwester Sembratowicz who incited the publication of a pastor's letter forbidding clergy and laity to subscribe to and read the Russian party newspaper "Chervonnaya Rus'"; many priests were taken away honors and dignities as they did not accept the so-called "New era programme."[49] Persecutions also affected public servants among Russian Galicians. According to Monchalovsky, those seeking to curry favor with the superiors, reported their colleagues-members of the Russian party to achieve the goal..."[50] Since 1890s, perversions of history by Ukrainian figures in Galicia have intensified, covering the entire public sphere from education to the press.

Galician-Russian publicists pointed in this regard to the blatantly tendentious content of Malorussian textbooks for Galician schools, in particular, the fact that Galician Ukrainophiles avoided everything that might displease Polish politicians and even did not hesitate to change their idol, Taras Shevchenko.[51].

The persecution of the Galician-Russian movement in Galicia after the announcement of the "New Era" programme in 1890 was a dress rehearsal for the large-scale repression that fell on Galician Russophiles during World War I, during which there were manifestations of open genocide against Rusyns of Galicia and the Ugrian Rus'.

Anticipating the coming cataclysms and describing the situation in Galicia in the 1890s, the publishing agency of the Galician-Russian intelligentsia, the Lvov "Galichanin", wrote in January 1893, "since the government has become attentive to Galicia seeing it as a base for military operations, we, Rus, feel a different kind of operation, namely, a systematic quest for eroding national identity (i.e., denationalization) of the Russian population."[52].

The growing divide between Russian Galicians and Ukrainophiles, which followed the adoption of the New Era programme, prompted the complete transformation of the Ukrainian movement from its "ethnographic-literary" phase to the political one, which was prepared by Vienna and the Polish administration of Galicia.

A key element of developing the Ukrainian identity in Galicia was the systematic perversion of the entire history of Galician Rus from the Middle Ages to the twentieth century to favor the political climate created by the Polish and Austrian administration of Galicia.

In this regard, the way Osip Monchalovsky, one of the leaders of the Galician-Russian movement, described the Ukrainian nationalism, as a betrayal of the Russian language and culture that have been developed over centuries and a denial of the origins, is absolutely correct and remains relevant to the present day.