On May 29, during the Season TV program “Daily Summary with Nikoloz Mzhavanadze,” the guest of the show, Dito Chubinidze, made the following claims about Ukrainian statehood:
- He claimed that Russia bought Kyiv in 1686 for 50,000 Russian rubles from the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth (Rzeczpospolita). According to him, this means that “independent Ukraine” does not exist and has never existed.
- He argued that Russia has a claim to Kyiv because it is “the capital of all Russian cities,” from which the “history of Kyivan Rus” begins.
- He claimed that in 1596, Pope Clement VIII brought several Orthodox dioceses of the Kyiv Metropolis under the jurisdiction of the Roman Catholic Church. By doing this, he allegedly “lit a fire” and “threw a fuse bomb” into the Russian-Ukrainian unity, causing eternal enmity between what he called “cousins.”
- In reality, Russia’s so-called “purchase” of Kyiv in 1686 was a compensation to Poland for losing the territory, not a genuine transfer of ownership. Russia seized Kyiv by force and based on temporary agreements.
- Kyiv was a multi-ethnic state and the center of Kyivan Rus. It cannot be traditionally regarded solely as a predecessor of Russia. This notion is part of an imperial narrative aimed at monopolizing historical heritage.
- The Union of Brest was a religious-political agreement initiated by Orthodox hierarchs, aimed at protecting the Church.
-
What Events Preceded the Signing of the “Eternal Peace”?
The 1686 “Eternal Peace” (Polish: Pokój Grzymułtowskiego), signed between Russia and the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, is often the basis for misleading interpretations. According to these interpretations, Russia “legitimately bought” Kyiv for 50,000 rubles, which is presented as a confirmation of ownership under international law. The Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth (1569–1795) was one of the largest and most multiethnic states in Europe, formed through the union of the Kingdom of Poland and the Grand Duchy of Lithuania. The union included a significant portion of present-day Ukraine, then known as Ruthenia, which had considerable strategic and economic importance. In reality, the 1686 agreement was preceded by the Truce of Andrusovo in 1667. This was a temporary ceasefire intended to end the 13-year Russo-Polish War. That war itself was triggered by the Cossack uprising of 1648, led by Bohdan Khmelnytsky, which culminated in a treaty concluded at the 1654 Pereiaslav Rada. At this assembly, the Zaporozhian Cossacks, fighting against Polish domination, accepted the protection of the Russian Tsar. This act was a key factor in the outbreak of the Russo-Polish War in 1654, which concluded with the Truce of Andrusovo in 1667.
According to the Andrusovo agreement, Left-Bank Ukraine was handed over to Russia, while the city of Kyiv was to remain under Moscow’s jurisdiction temporarily, for just two years. Nevertheless, Russia violated the terms of the agreement and retained Kyiv permanently. Consequently, Russia had been in control of Kyiv and its surrounding areas since 1667, nearly two decades before the “Eternal Peace” was signed, even though the truce stipulated Kyiv’s eventual return to the Commonwealth.
On April 26, 1686, Russia and the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth signed the Eternal Peace. This treaty confirmed the territorial division established by the Truce of Andrusovo: Left-Bank Ukraine, including Kyiv and the lands of the Zaporozhian Cossacks, remained under Russian control, in exchange for which Russia paid Poland 146,000 rubles. Right-Bank Ukraine remained under Polish administration. Additionally, the Bratslav Voivodeship and areas south of Kyiv were declared an uninhabited neutral zone. The treaty also stipulated that neither Russia nor Poland could negotiate separate peace deals with the Ottoman Empire. Under the terms of the Eternal Peace, Poland undertook the obligation to protect the religious freedom of the Orthodox population, while Russia was granted the right to act as the protector of Orthodox Christians. This agreement also marked Russia’s entry into the Holy League, an anti-Ottoman coalition that included the Holy Roman Empire and Venice alongside Poland.
Thus, the 146,000 silver rubles paid by Russia were not the price of a literal “purchase” of property but rather compensation to Poland for lost territories and part of a broader diplomatic settlement. Notably, the treaty was never given full legal legitimacy within Poland itself – the Polish Sejm failed to ratify it in 1688, suggesting the agreement lacked legal force.
Therefore, the claim that Russia “bought” Kyiv in 1686 and thereby established legitimate historical ownership is a manipulative interpretation of historical events, intended to undermine Ukraine’s sovereignty and statehood
-
Who Is the Legal Successor of Kyivan Rus?
While it is true that Kyiv was the political and cultural center of the medieval East European state known as Kyivan Rus, this state was not ethnically Russian and cannot be regarded solely as a predecessor of modern-day Russia.
Kyivan Rus was a multi-ethnic political federation that existed from the 9th to the 13th centuries. Its ruling Rurik dynasty was of Scandinavian origin. The state included various East Slavic and Finno-Ugric tribes. The center of this federation was Kyiv and not Moscow, which was only founded in the 12th century and did not become politically significant until the late 15th century. During this period, the name “Russia” did not yet exist, and neither did the modern Russian state.
According to the Russian imperial narrative, Russia considers itself the sole heir to Kyivan Rus. One of the foundations for this claim is that in the 13th century, the residence of the Metropolitan of Kyiv was relocated northeast – first to Vladimir, then to Moscow. This process laid the groundwork for the formation of the Russian Orthodox Empire and continues to serve as a historical pillar of the “Russian World” (Russkiy Mir) ideology.
However, the legacy of Kyivan Rus did not move solely eastward. It also continued westward – into what is now central and western Ukraine. Of particular importance was King Danylo’s establishment of the independent political entity, the Galicia-Volhynia Principality, which managed, for a time, to balance Mongol pressure. In 1253, Danylo was crowned king by the Pope, signaling a desire for Western legitimacy and alignment.
Moreover, there are four churches in modern Ukraine that link their origin with Kyivan Rus. Three of them – the Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the Kyiv Patriarchate, the Autocephalous Orthodox Church, and the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church – explicitly reject Russian imperial claims and view the heritage of Kyiv within the context of independent Ukrainian statehood. Therefore, Ukraine has the legitimate right to be considered the rightful heir to Kyivan Rus in geographical, historical, cultural, and religious terms.
The claim that “Russia has a claim to Kyiv because it was the capital of all Russian cities, from which the history of Russia began” is a manipulative interpretation of history and stems from the imperial Russian narrative aimed at monopolizing historical heritage.
-
What Do We Know About the Subordination of the Orthodox Eparchies of the Kyivan Metropolis to the Roman Church?
In 1596, the Union of Brest was indeed signed. According to this agreement, some bishops of the Kyivan Metropolis, who were at the time within the territory of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, entered into union with the Pope of Rome and formed the Uniate Church, which later became known as the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church.
The union was not the result of pressure imposed by the Vatican. On the contrary, it was initiated by Orthodox hierarchs themselves, who began negotiations with the Pope in order to protect their Church within the predominantly Polish-Catholic environment. It can be said that this was a religious-political agreement, not a deliberate attempt to sow discord between Russia and Ukraine.
The Russian Empire later used this religious division as a pretext to suppress Ukrainian identity and the Greek Catholic Church in the territories it annexed following the partitions of Poland. As John-Paul Himka describes in his book “Religion and Nationality in Western Ukraine,” imperial policy reinforced the notion that Orthodoxy automatically equated to Russian national identity, while the Greek Catholic Church was portrayed as foreign and a source of destabilization.
Myth Detector has previously fact-checked other claims related to Ukrainian statehood.
For more details, see:
- Did the Bolsheviks Create Ukraine, and What Do We Know About Rasa Juknevičienė’s Ties to the KGB?
- Bishop Spiridon’s Myth of “Older Brother” about “Kyivan Rus”
- Myths about the Creation of the Ukrainian Language
- When Did Kyivan Rus Originate, and What Do We Know about the Myths of Ukraine Created by Lenin?
- Which Territories did Ukraine Own in 1922 When Entering the Soviet Union?
The article has been written in the framework of Facebook’s fact-checking program. You can read more about the restrictions that Facebook may impose based on this article via this link. You can find information about appealing or editing our assessment via this link.
Read detailed instructions for editing the article.
Read detailed appeal instructions.
