WI: Structure & Potential of Independent Ukraine post WWI?

latest


Doesn't really matter how but lets say a Ukraine encompassing the above borders emerges post-WW1 (and post-Russian Civil War for that matter)

What could be the most plausible political structure of this state, and what kind of economic potential could it have short and long term?
 
I predict it will join the long tradition of Interwar period Eastern European authoritarian dictatorships after a short and unsuccessful attempt at democracy. Likely under Pavlo Skoropadsky, he seems conservative and at the sane time well known and popular for his military prowess enough to become an Ukrainian Pilsudski.

Ukraine inherited a solid industrial base after the Russian Empire, it had a very large population (even higher than OTL since the Holodomor won't happen), very fertile lands for agriculture and lots of natural resources. If it is managed well, it can become a capable regional power. It's biggest problem would be it's diplomatic isolation - both Poland and Russia will be very, very hostile, Germany is not reliable to help the Ukrainians out, and everyone else in Eastern Europe is too weak to help in an inevitable conflict against Poland or Russia.
 
I am thinking on this myself. My first blush is that the Ukraine needs to overcome its potential to fracture in two, as I understand it the East is more Russian ethnic and I suspect the Bolsheviks wage an aggressive civil war there. The Whites would not support an independent Ukraine and the Reds might concede it but would soon come back to "liberate" once they secure Russia itself. Now with one less major ethnicity missing the Union might be very different. Poland has a lot of Ukrainians inside its eastward expanded borders that puts these two on a collision course, but might the Allies see a bulwark Ukraine tempting enough to relegate Poland to just its ethnic majority territory and compensate with German areas populated with Poles? That rump Poland might be easier to align with the "USSR" than the Poland we know as the Russians seek to surround this fragile Ukraine with enemies. One POD might be a better German performance that gets the Ukraine occupied more fully and longer, perhaps the War lasts into 1919 and Germany gets a grain harvest in, food exported and sees the potential to untap the resources. The Germans release funds and encourage a Ukrainian state. And if it leans on Ukrainians to build at least a police force and anti-Bolshevik "army" that might propel this notional Ukraine past the post as Germany loses its grip and peace comes. I can sketch it but I know there are a lot od holes yet to fill.
 
This Ukraine doesnt seem to include Austrian partition in particular Lvov, so it is still possible to have good relations with Poland. I dont know whether borders outside Ukraine are canon for this scenario, if they are not, you could have Ukraine set up by joint allied intervention and allied with France, Poland and Romania.
 
It's stability and government would depend on its neighbors. With a Bolshevik Russia sitting above it, it would have to go authoritarian to effectively combat the Reds. I think it could survive as an independent entity, in much the same was inter-war Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania survived, but it would be much-much harder. Regardless of which side wins the Civil War in Russia, the (false) notion of Ukraine being Russian would have be much more pronounced than the designs either the Reds of the Whites would have on Estonia (for example). The bonds of history and the region's resources would have been too much for any imperialist Red or White to overlook. But I think an independent Ukraine could have survived in such a situation precisely because of the resources it had available to it. I am not sure how much it would be able to use those resources and how much would have be sold off or rented out to various foreign powers to maintain its independence, but it could be done.

Emerging from the trauma of a Civil War with a permanent threat situated above it and with ethnic rivalries along its borderlands, Ukraine would not have been a happy state. Galicia would have been an open sore with a toxic mix of nationalism, religion and historic grievances thrown into the lot, while the East would have seen an anxious Russian populace looking for signs it is being neglected. There would have been a tremendous pressure on the part of the government to be seen as Ukrainian and not just Not Quite Russian. Any attempt at legitimate democratic elections and a legitimate democratic government would have been undermined by the threat of a civil war and invasion. Any serious stab at democracy would result in massacres and voter suppression on a scale more akin to a failed Central African state. If it is understood your tribe wins if it has more people, then without a strong democratic tradition and rule of law, it means you should make sure less members of the opposing tribe get to vote. There was no democratic tradition in Russian Imperial history and while some would see Cossacks as representing an anarchic-democratic tradition, by the 1900s that anarchy was wholly divorced from anything pertaining to governing. It was understood that a Cossack was free in the same sense a Wild West cowboy was free, but it did not mean the Cossack was free to vote in a government or select his leader any more than a cowboy had a say in who would be the land baron in his state. The leadership of the Cossacks was as rigidly hierarchical as the British Royalty and had more complex traditions to boot. Yes, there was a romantic Wild Field notion of true freedom and yes, Makhno was out and about, but Makhno represented a sense of communal anarchy not a democratic republic. I see Ukraine edging towards a populist conservative government, one that pays attention to the moods of the populace, but is not held in check by anything resembling a democracy as I would define it.

Ukrainian government would on paper look centralized, but given the local passions, it would not be an authoritarian state in anything but name, even if it tried its hardest. Unless it was absolutely tone deaf, no Directorate in Kiev would try to make Odessa follow its rules to the letter, never mind Donbass. What happens next depends on which side won the Russian Civil War - Whites or Reds.
 
If - as the map implies - it's a CP victory world, than Ukraine is ruled by a reactionary landowners' regime known as the Hetmanate; a "Russian Empire restored in Cossack clothing" as one historian put it. The structure: a "constitutional monarchy" with accent on the "monarchy"; in other words, a dictatorship which may or may not have some (limited) input from a (tightly controlled and oligarchic) public sphere of politics. Extremely elitist, unpopular and unstable. It would have serious trouble presenting itself as Ukrainian due to its social and economic background, and might eventually try to compensate by cultural ultranationalism. Then again, maybe not.
Will probably descend into revolution and civil war as soon as Germany is incapacitated or sufficiently distracted.

If it's an Entente victory, the state will be a republic, nationalist and vaguely left-wing. It'll start off reasonably democratic, and - depending on many factors - may or may not stay that way. Something like a more respectable cousin of Menshevik Georgia. The biggest internal problem will be to integrate the sizeable Russian minority, which is possible but by no means certain.
 
Finland had a much smaller border to worry about and had democratic neighbors. What would Ukraine have?

A society where people's demands are met through democracy? Are you seriously suggesting the only way to handle the Soviet threat is to be an authoritarian state?
 
A society where people's demands are met through democracy? Are you seriously suggesting the only way to handle the Soviet threat is to be an authoritarian state?
I am saying it is what Ukraine in the 1920s would have had to become to keep a lid on its situation and to survive as an independent power. I did not say the only to stop Soviet Union was to become an authoritarian state, dude. I said that is what Ukraine would have to become.
 
I am saying it is what Ukraine in the 1920s would have had to become to keep a lid on its situation and to survive as an independent power. I did not say the only to stop Soviet Union was to become an authoritarian state, dude. I said that is what Ukraine would have to become.

Why would a democratic Ukraine succumb to the Soviet Union?
 
A society where people's demands are met through democracy? Are you seriously suggesting the only way to handle the Soviet threat is to be an authoritarian state?
Not in particular, but most post-Tsarist states ended up dictatorial in one way or the other. Finland was a different case than Ukraine - it had a reasonable amount of autonomy before 1917, where it already had democratic processes and traditions established (hell, Finland was one of the first countries in the world to enact universal suffrage). Ukraine had no such experience with democracy, and since all of it's OTL neighbours - Poland, Russia, Romania and the Baltics - went dictatorial, it shows that having a stable democratic Interwar Ukraine would be hard.
 
Not in particular, but most post-Tsarist states ended up dictatorial in one way or the other. Finland was a different case than Ukraine - it had a reasonable amount of autonomy before 1917, where it already had democratic processes and traditions established (hell, Finland was one of the first countries in the world to enact universal suffrage). Ukraine had no such experience with democracy, and since all of it's OTL neighbours - Poland, Russia, Romania and the Baltics - went dictatorial, it shows that having a stable democratic Interwar Ukraine would be hard.

I am prepared to acknowledge it might become an authoritarian state, but that is different than blaming the Soviets for that.
 
IOTL, Ukrainian leaders lamented the lack of "national consciousness" among the peasantry as the main reason Bolshevik influence was able to penetrate Ukraine so easily and roll back its independence.

In addition, many early Soviet leaders came from Ukraine. There was a strong following in the working class.

Democracy could just as easily turn Ukraine into a Soviet ally. The landowners and other elites, not to mention the nationalist middle classes, will not want that and will back a strongman regime similar to that in Poland. Finally, German influence will prop up Skoropadsky, who is best positioned to fulfill that role.

Ukraine will not be a democracy.
 
He's right. Postwar Ukraine would most certainly be a dictatorship. Under Pavlo Skoropadsky or perhaps Vasyl von Hapsburg as Nationalists. Or Symon Petliura as a Socialist dictatorship.

The most likely choice is the former since the ladder was an incompetent traitor. This Nationalist Ukraine would likely end up under Vasyl and the OUN eventually, though he may not be crowned King/Hetman, and Skoropadsky will likely still be an influential figure. It would likely be a cross between Fascist Italy and interwar Poland. The OUN will create a Fascistic dictatorship, under Vasyl/Konovalets they would create a Corporativistic economy, and rapidly industrialize the Nation and modernize its agriculture. I imagine things would be pretty good, the Soviet Union would be a lot weaker and more susceptible to famine. In this period of time a true sense of National Consciousness would be created, and maintained. Ukraine would also have a very large population, and considering how men like Pavlo Skoropadsky were able to reform the administration in such a short period of time into something functioning I would not be surprised if the country is run very well, and her economy flourishes under this new system. Especially since the country has the more reliable agriculture industry to help provide capital for industrial growth.
 
Top