An entire book can be written about him, but today three words will suffice: Ukrainian, Independentist, and Nationalist. He lived in the turbulent period from 1873 to 1924, but he remained faithful to his roots and his ideals until the end.
Evidently, history repeats itself. In the late 19th century there were two leading social and political trends amongst the Ukrainian intelligentsia. Reformist educators tried to talk Russia into granting Ukraine greater cultural autonomy. Their contemporary counterparts are the shallow patriots, who know nothing else but folk songs and the national language.
The other part of the 19th-century Ukrainian intelligentsia were adherents of socialism, a popular Western political trend at the time. They unconditionally believed in progress and strove to free all the “oppressed people” of the Russian Empire from the “decaying feudalism.” Similarly, liberal democrats are pursuing Western fashions today: they believe in “liberal values” and want to “gift” the entire world with them.
Unexpectedly for both factions, the third trend made its appearance — the Ukrainian national independentism, launched by Mikhnovsky. At the time, when some were lamenting the hard lot of the people and others were playing with socialist fantasies, Mikhnovsky put the question bluntly: we need an independent Ukrainian state!
“Our generation must create its own Ukrainian national ideology to fight and liberate the nation and establish our own state. We will live by our own wisdom, regardless of how unrefined and rustic it may be. Otherwise we will never free our nation,” wrote Mikhnovsky and plunged into action with all of his youthful zeal.
He participated in the Tarasivtsi Brotherhood, spoke in public in many cities of Ukraine, was among the founders of the Ukrainian Revolutionary Party, etc. His personal charisma and deep faith in his ideals fascinated people. For example, under his influence the children of the Ukrainian entrepreneur Oleksandr Alchevsky became patriots. When World War I erupted, Mikhnovsky went to the front, where he conceived the idea of Ukrainizing the army. However, a revolution broke out in Russia.
The Central Rada was brimming over with shallow patriots and socialists, and thus was irritating Mikhnovsky by its lack of willpower and action. Without much deliberation, Mikhnovsky and a team of independentists set up an alternative Central Rada. After a while, they did join the “first” Rada on hopes of making it operate properly. But their hopes were in vain: the socialists drowned every issue in the marsh of discussions, thereby stalling the decision-making process. Then Mikhnovsky slammed the door and set about Ukrainizing the army.
His principled and resolute stand appealed to the military. In 1917 three military councils were held, which yielded concrete results. First, the First Ukrainian Volunteer Cavalry Regiment and the Pavlo Polubotko Ukrainian Military Club, headed by Mikhnovsky, were set up. Second, a special committee was created and the activities to form a Ukrainian army were launched. Third, the Ukrainization policy was applied to the Russian army — independentist propaganda was being carried out and Ukrainian military units were being formed.
Mikhnovsky easily gained popularity in the military, and he was well on his way to become a serious rival of the Central Rada. The leaders of the young Ukrainian state at the time were openly hostile toward him. Hrushevsky, Petliura, and Vynnychenko (all socialists) were unanimously criticizing Mikhnovsky and tried to check his influence in the military by all available means.
When Mikhnovsky and his aides set up the Pavlo Polubotko Second Ukrainian Cossack Regiment, Vynnychenko personally issued an order to disband it and stop the delivery of supplies. In response the regiment rose up in arms and seized the arsenal and a part of Kyiv — they were fed up with spineless Vynnychenkos, Petliuras, and Hrushevskys. When the emotions calmed down, Vynnychenko and Petliura ordered the Mikhovsky-led regiment, which they perceived as a threat, to be sent all the way to Romania, to the front. There they were basically used as cannon fodder — there were only five survivors in the entire regiment.
So Mikhnovsky’s relationships with the Central Rada were poor — he turned out to be too radical and successful for the “moderate” but totally spineless politicians. Equally poor were his relationships with Skoropadsky’s Hetmanate, and he absolutely hated the Directory (essentially, a revived Central Rada). His hatred was so deep-rooted that he started preparing a coup. Distrusting the democratic politicians, he relied on the Sich Riflemen led by Yevhen Konovalets and the Zaporozhian Cossacks headed by Petro Bolbochan.
However, the Directory learned about his intentions and Petliura ordered to have Bolbochan arrested. The coup failed.
After the Bolsheviks toppled the Directory, Mikhnovsky went to the Kuban. However, after a short while he returned to Kyiv due to his poor health. Kyiv was completely “red” — the leaders of the Central Rada and the Directory had suffered an ignominious defeat in the struggle for statehood, leaving Ukraine to the mercy of the red hordes.
Mikhovsky realized that he had completed his mission and decided to depart this life without the assistance of the Bolshevik special services. He was staying with his old friends, the Shemets. His first attempt to hang himself failed, but the second one did not. On April 3, 1924 he was found hanged on an apple tree in an orchard. In his antemortem note he said that he wished to commit suicide rather than be killed. He was 51 at the time. However, 85 years after his death the people still remember him.
Mikhnovsky taught Ukrainians one of the most valuable lessons in the entire 20th century: you have to be strong to survive. It is again highly relevant today. The contemporary political elite consists of the same spineless Vynnychenkos and Hrushevskys. The only difference is that instead of socialism they are singing odes to liberal values. All their wisdom is demagoguery about the multi-vector policies and pragmatism.
‘A humble calf sucks two mothers,’ they say quoting a popular proverb. But this is only half of the truth. The other half is that calves are usually butchered. The 20th century supplied ample proof of this: the Bolsheviks, Germans, and Poles all butchered us, while the Soviets also killed us by famine. Now we have limited options: either become victims of butchers again or finally shake off this foolish stupor and become what we really are — Ukrainians, a nation.
