Tsardom of Muscovy

The occupation administration of the Tsardom of Muscovy engaged in systemic lawless arbitrariness against the Indigenous population: the historian Sh. B. Akhmadov states that «the venality and bribe-taking of the voivodes, who permitted themselves great abuses — all this was far from a new phenomenon»^[31].

The legal codification of the territory's division. Moscow deliberately fragmented a once unified country, turning such important regions as Zaporizhzhia into rightless buffer zones under joint administration: "...Zaporizhzhia (which under the treaty of 1667 was under the joint rule of Moscow and Warsaw)"^[3].

The legal codification of the country's split into two parts, with the Right Bank turned into a buffer zone: "Under the terms of the Eternal Peace, the Right Bank remained with Poland... it was agreed and resolved that those places are to remain deserted, as they now are"^[3][2].

Preparation for the liquidation of the Hetmanate through the gubernia reform, into which Cossack towns were artificially inscribed. Moscow planned "to take the Little Russian towns into its own domain"^[3][2].

Abolition of the regiment-and-company administrative structure in favor of the imperial partition of lands: "as early as 1699 the Polish Sejm adopted a decision to liquidate the Cossack order on the Right Bank"^[17].

To guarantee acceptance of the treaty's enslaving terms, the tsardom bribed the local starshyna with guarantees that they would keep their offices, placing the elite's personal ambitions above national ones: "the hetman shall not remove anyone of the general starshyna from office without the will and decree of their most serene tsarist majesty..."^[3].

To gain control over the church, Moscow employed corruption at the international level. "The Kyiv Metropolitanate was seized... through bribery, manipulation, blackmail..." ^[4]. The envoy of Constantinople "directly asked the Muscovite envoy for money in exchange for issuing the required charter"^[5][6].

The distribution of the highest imperial awards to buy the hetman's loyalty against the backdrop of Ukraine's resource exhaustion: Peter I "deigned to name me a cavalier of the glorious order of the holy first-called apostle of Christ, Andrew"^[3][2][6].

Protection and encouragement of the part of the local elite loyal to Moscow, which allowed the metropole to control the hetman through the hands of his own subordinates (the "divide and rule" principle)^[27].

To secure the political subordination of the Nokhchi elite, the administration used financial incentives: historian Murat Yasar points out that «the signing of the shert went hand in hand with monetary allowances and gifts that the tsar gave to local rulers»^[9].

The occupation administration handed out privileges and transferred to loyal Nokhchi leaders power over dependent people in order to win them over to its side: the register of cases of the Posolsky Prikaz for 1645 records a petition from the serving Okotsk murza Chepan Kokhostrov to Tsar Mikhail Fedorovich and a report extract by the central apparatus «on granting him an increase to his salary and possession of the uzdens and «people» of his brother, murza Albir Kokhostrov»^[11].

The introduction of censorship control over Ukrainian book printing. Patriarch Joachim prohibited publications without his sanction and sent a "reprimand for publishing books without prior permission." "The anathema of the Russian Orthodox Church on church books printed in the Ukrainian literary language of the time"^[8]. ^[2][3].

Introduction of strict censorship of book printing: the "Decree of Peter I banning the printing of books in the Ukrainian language at the Kyiv-Pechersk and Chernihiv printing houses"^[8].

As soon as political interests changed, Moscow did not hesitate to conclude a separate peace with its recent enemy — Poland — cynically negotiating the division of spheres of influence behind the back of its Ukrainian ally: "In October 1656, negotiations between Russia and Poland begin in present-day Vilnius"^[1].

The logical culmination of the absorption process was the official partition of Ukrainian lands between the two neighboring states. The treaty was signed exclusively by representatives of Moscow and Warsaw: "On the Muscovite side the negotiations were conducted by... A. L. Ordin-Nashchokin... on the Polish side, by Commissar Jerzy Hlebowicz" ^[30]. The opinion of the autonomy itself was completely ignored: "The interests of the hetmans and of Ukraine were, of course, not taken into account" ^[2]. "For the Cossacks this is yet another blow — the decision about their fate is made behind their backs"^[1].

The division of spheres of influence behind the back of the Ukrainian ally, accompanied by a financial transaction for territory: Moscow officially paid an enormous sum in silver for the cession of Kyiv^[1][2][3].

The destruction of the Cossack regiments by the Polish Sejm was a direct, time-delayed consequence of the "Eternal Peace" (1686), under which Moscow officially ceded the Right Bank to Warsaw, handing the indigenous population over for suppression^[17].

Use of Orlyk's Tatar allies to break up the anti-Moscow coalition from within. On the Right Bank, the Tatars betrayed the Cossacks and turned to seizing the civilian population: "The betrayal of the Tatars... they dispersed across Ukraine, taking yasyr and destroying settlements"^[25].

The diplomatic apparatus of the Tsardom of Muscovy concluded an alliance agreement with Kalmyk forces for joint actions against the Indigenous population: historian Ya. Z. Akhmadov states that on September 30, 1708, "at the negotiations between Peter's military commander P.M. Apraksin and the Kalmyk khan Ayuka, an agreement of eight articles was concluded, including 'on the pursuit of the Chechens and Nogais'"^[23].

The diplomatic apparatus of the Tsardom of Muscovy used loyal elites of neighboring peoples for joint armed actions against the Nokhchi societies: historian Ya. Z. Akhmadov states that in 1718 an expedition into the lands of the Nokhchi was carried out by the forces of "Kabardian princes allied with Peter I"^[23].

The occupation administration dispatched emissaries to collect strategic, demographic, and economic data on the mountain societies of the Nokhchi: in 1658 the central apparatus of the Posolsky Prikaz instructed the Terek voivodes to find out «how many of them there are and what kind of people they are... and what fighting force they have... and what grows in their land, and what craftsmen there are»^[11], in execution of which in 1659 the Terek voivodes Melenty Kvashnin and his associates «sent a streltsy commander into the Shibut land and ordered him to inspect in the Shibut land... the towns and places»^[11], who, in an extract for the report of the Posolsky Prikaz to Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich of 1660, reported that «[to]wns they have none, nor any fighting forces»^[11].

The government of the Tsardom of Muscovy organized expeditions to study and inventory natural resources in the territories of the Indigenous population: historian Ya. Z. Akhmadov records the 1717 "survey of mineral springs and other natural riches of the Terek River (including the Bragun warm springs) by Doctor Gottlieb Schober on the assignment of Peter I"^[23].

The military forces of the Tsardom of Muscovy erected a fortified outpost on the lands of the Nokhchi: historian E. N. Kusheva states that in 1567 "the Russian town... was erected in that same year"^[13].

The military forces of the Tsardom of Muscovy repeatedly rebuilt the fortified outpost on the lands of the Nokhchi: historian E. N. Kusheva writes that "in 1577 - 1578... the Russian town was reestablished on the Terek River at the mouth of the Sunzha"^[13], while the compiler of the collection of documents E. N. Kusheva indicates that the military forces of the Tsardom of Muscovy "rebuilt the ostrog in 1590 and 1635"^[11] and that "in 1651 a Russian ostrog was built anew on the left bank of the Sunzha"^[11].

The military forces of the Tsardom of Muscovy erected a new fortified base: historian E. N. Kusheva writes that they «were building it in 1588-1589... Mikhailo Burtsev and Kelar Protasyev... the main force of its garrison consisted of streltsy armed with «fire weaponry», with pishchal arquebuses»^[13], while historians A. S. Kulikov and V. A. Runov add that in the early 17th century «the Terek fort had turned into a rather powerful fortress. Its artillery numbered 40 large guns»^[16].

The government of the Tsardom of Muscovy consolidated militarized settlements on the border with the lands of the Nokhchi to strengthen control: historian Ya. Z. Akhmadov states that in 1711–1712 "the small Greben Cossack towns along the Terek were merged, by order of Tsar Peter I, into 5 stanitsas - from Chervlyonnaya to Kurdyukovskaya"^[23].

The metropole's administration did not pay for forced labor and withheld food provisions for five years: a memorandum from the Posolsky Prikaz (Ambassadorial Office) to the Prikaz of the Kazan Palace records a complaint that the subordinate Okochans of Tersky Town «were not given the sovereign's grain allowance for the past years — for the 125th, and the 126th, and the 127th, and the 128th, and the 129th year»^[11].

The Tsardom of Muscovy enshrined in state documents its course toward the complete absorption of the region: "Prince Vasily declared in the articles the beginning of the process of Russification"^[2].

Within the framework of the new Muscovite state ideology, a deliberate erasure of a separate Ukrainian identity began. The author constructs a false myth of unity: he "tailors history to the scenario he needs in order to substantiate that Kyiv is directly related to Moscow"^[1].

The introduction of strict political censorship. Under threat of punishment, the population was forbidden even to say aloud that their lands constituted a separate state entity: "and let no one utter such voices, that the Little Russian land is of the hetman's regiment"^[3].

A course toward the complete absorption and destruction of the very name of the Cossack state. The empire sought "to eradicate the Zaporozhian Host of the Lower Dnipro and erase its name forever... to enslave the entire Little Russian people to itself forever"^[3][1].

From the very beginning, Moscow laid an asymmetric foundation for the relationship, harshly cutting off the autonomy's international agency. Having satisfied the Cossacks' internal demands, Moscow categorically forbade them to conduct independent foreign affairs: "Tsar Alexei accepts the main demands — everything except an independent foreign policy"^[1].

The Tsardom of Muscovy physically and legally isolated the autonomy from participation in international politics, deciding the fate of the Cossack lands without regard for their national interests: "This is a true drama for Ukrainians: at the insistence of the Polish side, Ukrainians are not admitted to the negotiations"^[1].

In the legal partition of Ukrainian lands, the opinion of the people themselves or of their leaders was demonstratively ignored. The Hetmanate was treated exclusively as an object: "The interests of the hetmans and of Ukraine were, of course, not taken into account"^[2].

"In this provision of the articles, the tsarist government's aspiration to turn Ukraine into a region incorporated into the Russian state on ordinary terms was openly declared for the first time"^[2].

The complete exclusion of the autonomy from participation in international negotiations about the status of its own territories. In the legal partition of Ukrainian lands, the opinion of the people themselves was ignored: "For Mazepa and all Ukrainians this was a colossal humiliation"^[1][2].

Liquidation of the statehood and international legal personality of the autonomy as a result of the defeat of the Swedish-Ukrainian forces: "From 1709 Ukraine loses its independence, its legal and international-law attributes, and therefore ceases to exist as a state"^[32].

Refusal to sign a treaty: replacement of an agreement between equals with unilateral "resolutions" (decrees) of the tsar^[29][3].

Transfer of Cossack regiments under the direct command of imperial officers and officials outside the Cossack hierarchy^[3].

The metropole deliberately ignored official complaints by the Indigenous population about the arbitrary conduct of the appointed rulers, depriving them of the right to protection: the compilers of academic document collections state that, as regards the petition submitted to Tsar Mikhail Fyodorovich, «the petition of the «Okochans» was not granted»^[15].

A campaign to erase the name of the resistance leader (Damnatio memoriae): "For two centuries, Mazepa's name and deeds were expunged... His coats of arms were chiseled off the churches he had built, and his name was blotted out in books"^[2][3][19].

Issuance of an official manifesto banning the use of the very name of the Sich in any documents^[3]. Physical desecration of sacred sites: "the tombs of the Sich otamans were plundered"^[32].

A covert operation by Muscovite emissaries disguised as monks, aimed at destroying ancient documents of the 11th–17th centuries. The fire destroyed "the written memory of the independent Ukrainian political and spiritual life of the Lavra"^[8].

The destruction of the Kyiv theological school and the declaration of its works as heresy: "All Ukrainian writings, beginning with the catechism of Petro Mohyla, were declared heretical... the council condemned virtually all the principal works of Kyivan theological scholarship"^[3][2].

Introduction of an obligation to submit full financial reports on the region's revenues under the supervision of the center^[29][3].

Large-scale looting of state arsenals and the treasury during a punitive raid on the capital of the autonomy: "Menshikov managed to carry off part of the artillery"^[2][3][19].

Confiscation and removal of the Sich artillery, treasury, river fleet, and food supplies^[18].

Representatives of the metropole's authorities openly seized property from the Nokhchi population, abusing their official position: in their petition to Tsar Mikhail Fyodorovich, the service Okochans of the Terek town reported that the Kabardian prince Sunchaley Yanglychevich Cherkassky «having taken from us by force 8 good horses from the herd, sent them off to his kabaks (villages) in Kabarda»^[15][11].

Representatives of the metropole confiscated the personal property of a deceased Nokhchi delegate into the state treasury: a memorandum from the Posolsky Prikaz to the Prikaz of the Kazan Palace prescribed an investigation into the death of the drowned Okotsky murza Kokhostrov Biytemirov, while of what was found they «took his clothing and all his goods into our treasury»^[11].

The wholesale massacre of the town's civilian population: "Funk slaughtered more than a thousand people... and ordered the killing of everyone encountered, in order to instill terror in others"^[6]. "In total, about 15 thousand Ukrainians perished in the Baturyn tragedy, including all the women and children"^[2][3][19].

Total physical extermination of the garrison's defenders^[18][3].

The dispatch of Cossack regiments to distant theaters of war (the Baltic countries, Poland), which led to their exhaustion. The troops were "wearied by year-round military service, worn down, left without horses, and destitute"^[3][2][4].

The occupation administration obliged the subordinated Nokhchi societies to take part in military campaigns: historian E. N. Kusheva points to documents «on the possibility of the participation of Murza Shikh... in a campaign of Russian men-at-arms»^[11].

The occupation administration forcibly sent subordinated Nokhchi to fight against their own compatriots: historian E. N. Kusheva indicates in the heading of a primary document that there took place a «campaign of Terek men-at-arms and Terek Okochans... against the Endirey ruler Saltan-Magmut and the people of the Okotsk and Michkiz kabaks who had joined him»^[11].

The occupation administration of Tersky Town mobilized the metropole's subordinate allies: in a petition to Tsar Mikhail Fyodorovich, the Kabardian prince Sholokh reported that «the voivode Mikita Dmitreevich Velyaminov sent me... with my father on your sovereign's service... against your sovereign's disobedient ones — the Michkiz people, against their kabaks»^[11].

The occupation administration compelled the subordinate Nokhchi to take part in armed conflicts: in their petition to Tsar Mikhail Fyodorovich, the Okotsky murza Kokhostrov Biytemirov and the serving Okochans of Tersky Town reported that «we, your sovereign's kholops (bonded servants), fight your sovereign's disobedient ones, not sparing our heads; for you, sovereign, we shed our blood and lay down our heads»^[11].

The occupation administration and forces loyal to it sent the subordinate Nokhchi (Okochans) to take part in armed conflicts, including against their own compatriots: the historian I. Kh. Tkhamokova states that in 1626 the voivodes sent «252 Okochans»^[14][15] on a campaign, and in 1628, during an armed incursion, the Kabardian murza Konshov-murza Bitemryukov «went against these "mountain people"... with the "Okochans"»^[14].

The appointed controlled administration sent subordinated Nokhchi (Okochans) to take part in the metropole's Crimean campaigns: a dispatch from the Kabardian prince Kaspulat Mutsalovich Cherkassky to the Posolsky Prikaz in 1675 states that for the campaign against the Crimean ulusy he had at his disposal «190 Okochan men»^[15]; the historian I. Kh. Tkhamokova adds that in 1675 detachments fought in Crimea alongside the prince «with uzdens, with the newly baptized, and with «Okochans»»^[14].

The occupation administration sent subordinated Nokhchi (Okochans) to take part in armed conflicts (the Chyhyryn campaigns) on the territory of Ukraine: the historian I. Kh. Tkhamokova notes that in 1678 the Kabardian prince Kaspulat Mutsalovich Cherkassky (under whose authority the Okochans were) received a tsar's charter «for having taken part in the Crimean and Chyhyryn campaigns»^[14]; the document registers for 1678 record a dispatch from the Chuhuiv voivode Ivan Rykhtarov to the Razryadny Prikaz «on the march of the regiment of Prince Kaspulat Mutsalovich Cherkassky to Chuhuiv»^[15]; and in 1679 Tsar Fedor Alekseevich issued a decree to the Posolsky Prikaz «on his regiment performing guard duty in the vicinity of Chuhuiv and Kharkiv»^[15].

Under direct military threat, the mountain communities were forced to capitulate: in a petition to Tsar Mikhail Fyodorovich, the Kabardian prince Sunchaley Yanglychevich Cherkassky reported that the mountaineers «brought their guilt... petitioned humbly and gave... the shert (oath of allegiance)»^[11].

The occupation administration demanded that the Nokhchi mountain communities (the Shibutians) legally formalize their subordinate status: a report from the Terek voivodes Ivan Andreyevich Dashkov and Bogdan Gerasimovich Priklonsky to the Posolsky Prikaz records information about «the oath given by the Shibutians Lavarsan Yazyev and Zatyshka Lavarsanov on behalf of 20 households in 1627»^[11], with a direct injunction that they «not fall away from the sovereign and remain under the sovereign's hand in outright bondage (kholopstvo)»^[11].

The occupation administration forced the mountain societies of the Nokhchi into legal subordination: in 1647, under pressure from the Terek voivodes, the Shibutians «placed themselves under thy sovereign high hand in direct servitude... and swore the shert oath on the Quran»^[11], while the Michkiz people «with all the Michkiz land placed themselves in servitude under thy sovereign high hand... and swore the shert on the Quran»^[11].

The occupation administration made attempts to force the independent societies of the Nokhchi (the Shibutians) into legal subordination: an extract for the report of the Posolsky Prikaz to Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich of 1660 states that the Terek voivodes Melenty Kvashnin and his associates sent a military emissary to the Highlanders and ordered him «to bring them to the oath»^[11]; however, the attempt proved unsuccessful, and he «did not br[in]g the inhabitants of the Shibut land to the oath»^[11].

The central authorities of the Tsardom of Muscovy used an appointed ruler for the legal subordination of the region: in 1676 the Posolsky Prikaz sent an instruction to the Kabardian prince Kaspulat Mutsalovich Cherkassky on the necessity of arriving at the Terek town «to administer the oath of the population of the North Caucasus to Tsars Ivan and Peter Alekseevich»^[15].

The diplomatic apparatus of the Tsardom of Muscovy expanded the legal subordination of Nokhchi territories: the historian Ya. Z. Akhmadov records that in 1696 the metropole formalized «the expression of Russia's protection over the Braguny principality in Chechnya»^[23].

As a guarantee of submission, the occupation administration detained representatives of the Nokhchi elite: historian E. N. Kusheva writes that «his nephew Batai was left as an amanat (hostage) in the Terek town»^[11].

As a result of the devastation of their settlements, the subjugated communities handed people over to the occupation administration: in a petition to Tsar Mikhail Fyodorovich, the Kabardian prince Sunchaley Yanglychevich Cherkassky records that they «gave amanats (hostages) to Tersky Town»^[11].

The occupation administration used the taking of hostages from among the Indigenous population to guarantee the loyalty of the mountain societies of the Nokhchi: a dispatch from the Terek voivode Prince Venedikt Andreevich Obolensky and his associates to the Posolsky Prikaz in 1647 officially records the fact of «the giving of an amanat to the Terek town»^[11]; the metropole instructed the voivodes «to order that amanats be taken from them — kinsmen of notable people»^[11], as a result of which the Highlanders «gave a good amanat to the Terek town, Kasa»^[11][13].

The occupation administration set itself the task of extracting hostages from the mountain societies of the Nokhchi (the Shibutians), but the attempt did not succeed: in 1658 the central apparatus of the Posolsky Prikaz directly instructed the Terek voivodes «to order that amanats be taken from them — kinsmen of notable people»^[11], after which the Terek voivodes Melenty Kvashnin and his associates ordered their military emissary «to take an amanat to the Terek»^[11]; however, the extract for the report of the Posolsky Prikaz to Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich of 1660 records no handover of new hostages and merely states the old fact that «on the Terek [there is an amanat] of theirs»^[11].

After forcibly coercing the signing of the new treaty, Moscow proceeded to the direct occupation of the autonomy's living space. Muscovite garrisons headed by voivodes were installed not only in Kyiv but also in other strategically important cities, ensuring physical control over the territory from within: "The Articles... substantially narrowed the autonomy of Cossack Ukraine within the Muscovite state"^[21].

To ensure constant armed oversight of the autonomy's top leadership and to prevent uprisings, the Tsardom of Muscovy stationed its regular troops directly in the hetman's capital: "with the hetman in Baturyn, for his protection and safety, there shall be a Muscovite streltsy regiment..."^[3].

The deployment of a network of military bases (Novobohorodytska, Kamianyi Zaton) near the Zaporozhian Sich. Under the pretext of protection, Moscow was establishing rigid military control: "The Zaporozhians... put forward the destruction of Kamianyi Zaton as a condition for any oath of allegiance"^[3][2].

The strangulation of the autonomy's economy through the system of billeting the regular army: "And when the kompaniytsi and serdiuks stand in winter quarters... 24 commoners feed a single kompaniyets without any excuses"^[3][2].

Establishment of the institution of a ministerial resident for permanent surveillance of the hetman and his correspondence^[29][3].

Deployment of Muscovite garrisons headed by tsarist voivodes into the key centers of the autonomy (Kyiv, Pereiaslav, Nizhyn, Chernihiv, and others) to physically hold the territories under occupation^[28].

A permanent military contingent maintained at state expense was stationed in the territory: historian I. Kh. Tkhamokova quotes a tsar's decree according to which «in 1623, «upon the petition of the Terek and Greben Cossacks», a tsar's decree was sent to the Terek ordering the payment of salaries to 30 atamans and 470 rank-and-file Cossacks»^[14]. New personnel were also sent in to hold the positions: historian I. Kh. Tkhamokova notes that «in 1589, soon after the town was built, 800 streltsy and Cossacks were to be sent there from Astrakhan, but the Astrakhan voivode sent only 600 men»^[14].

The occupation administration of the Tsardom of Muscovy maintained the regime depriving the subordinated societies of the Nokhchi (the Okochans) of autonomy, officially formalizing the transfer of power over them to a new feudal lord loyal to the metropole: in 1661 Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich issued a charter of grant to the Kabardian prince Kaspulat Mutsalovich Cherkassky, instructing him «to be prince over the Okochans and over the Cherkas who serve us, the great sovereign, on the Terek, and to administer and judge them in military organization and in all our affairs»^[11].

The implantation of an artificial narrative of an unbreakable historical bond between Kyiv and Moscow, which was meant to replace real history and serve Muscovite political ends: the author "proves the Muscovite tsar's right to rule in Kyiv"^[1].

To deny the Ukrainian delegation any opportunity to influence the geopolitical arrangements or to protest the separate peace in time, Muscovite diplomacy imposed a rigid information blockade, not letting the Cossacks even onto the threshold of the negotiation hall: "at the insistence of the Polish side, Ukrainians are not admitted to the negotiations"^[1].

Creation of a specialized agency in Moscow to govern the autonomy instead of the diplomatic Ambassadorial Prikaz. This action transferred the Hetmanate from the status of a foreign state to the rank of an internal colony^[12].

The metropole's occupation administration abolished Nokhchi self-governance, forcibly subordinating them to an alien elite: historian E. N. Kusheva states that in 1614 Tsar Mikhail Fyodorovich ordered the Kabardian prince Sunchaley Yanglychevich Cherkassky «to be prince over all the Okochans... to judge them and to have charge of them in military organization and in all matters»^[13].

The seizure of a neighboring state's territories was presented to the population of the Tsardom of Muscovy not as an act of political or military expansion, but as a great sacred mission. The use of Orthodox rhetoric helped justify Muscovite ambitions with the noble aims of protecting brothers in faith: "The return of these lands to Russia was then understood by everyone as Reunification"^[1].

The imperial historical myth was directly grounded in religious manipulation: the expansion and absorption of Ukrainian territories were justified by an invented concept of religious unity. The author constructed an ideologeme in order to "give the Muscovite tsar the motivation to continue the struggle against the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth for the liberation of the remaining part of the single Orthodox people from the rule of Catholics"^[24].

The annexation of the metropolitanate was disguised as the protection of co-religionists. The reform was carried out "relying on the Orthodox movement against the Turkish conquerors... Golitsyn's main project became the subordination of the Kyiv metropolitanate"^[2][5][3].

Use of a controlled church to legitimize the reprisal through an unlawful anathema. "The anathema of the 'Russian Orthodox Church'... The Ecumenical Patriarchate considers the Russian anathema against Mazepa non-canonical"^[4][6][3].

Sermons and decrees framing the destruction of the Sich as a "God-pleasing" punishment for "treason against the Orthodox monarch"^[3].

The government of the Tsardom of Muscovy used religious identity and the concept of protecting co-religionists as ideological cover for military expansion: historian Michael Khodarkovsky states that the diplomatic apparatus positioned the tsar as a "universal Christian ruler who 'upheld the true Christian faith'"^[10], while invasions were motivated by a "divine obligation to rescue Orthodox Christians from infidel captivity"^[10]; as a result, as historian Michael Khodarkovsky summarizes, in the advance into new territories "Moscow's military and political interests could no longer be separated from the ideological and theological rhetoric of expansion"^[10], because of which the North Caucasus "became a religious frontier"^[26].

The forced use of Cossacks to build imperial infrastructure under harsh conditions: "in the making of fortifications around the Kyiv-Pechersk Monastery"^[3][2].

The mass conscription of the population for the construction of military installations in Moscow's interests. The tsar officially thanked the hetman for "the considerable labors borne... in the making of the Pechersk fortification"^[3][2].

Mass mobilization of Cossack regiments for hard construction labor in Ingria^[3].

The appointed administration forced the Indigenous population into unpaid labor: historian E. N. Kusheva points out that the Kabardian prince Sunchaley Yanglychevich Cherkassky compelled the service Okochans of the Terek town subordinate to him «to make all manner of wares for him, to plow the fields and to mow the hay»^[13]. The metropole itself went years without paying for the military service of the Indigenous population: a report from the Terek voivode Pyotr Petrovich Golovin to the Astrakhan voivode Ivan Nikitich Odoyevsky records that they «serve the sovereign tsar... in all manner of the sovereign's Terek... services... yet have not been granted the sovereign's monetary and grain salary for the tenth year now»^[15].

The occupation administration deliberately exhausted the Indigenous population materially, forcing them to perform compulsory service at their own expense: in a petition submitted to Tsar Mikhail Fyodorovich, the Okotsky murza Kokhostrov Biytemirov and the serving Okochans of Tersky Town reported that, because their allowance went unpaid, they «were left without grain, have utterly perished from hunger and every hardship, have fallen, sovereign, into great debt, and are dying a death of starvation together with our wives and little children»^[11].

The punitive detachments physically exterminated the local population: in a petition to Tsar Mikhail Fyodorovich, the Kabardian prince Sunchaley Yanglychevich Cherkassky reported that in the settlements they «slew many other peo[ple]»^[11].

The regular army of the Tsardom of Muscovy physically exterminated inhabitants who refused to submit to the occupation: the historian Ya. Z. Akhmadov states that in 1708 «military detachments were sent to the Terek that physically annihilated any population showing the slightest disobedience»^[23].

When covert methods of destabilization proved insufficient, the Tsardom moved to open military invasion. The regular Muscovite army attempted to force the Hetmanate into submission, which ended for it in catastrophe at Konotop: "The flower of the Muscovite cavalry, which had made the fortunate campaigns of '54 and '55, perished in a single day..."^[33].

To construct the base on the lands of the Nokhchi, the administration brought in armed detachments: historian E. N. Kusheva writes that in the spring of 1567 the voivodes A. S. Babichev and P. Protasyev were dispatched from Moscow "with many men, as well as ordnance, cannons, and arquebuses"^[13], while historians A. S. Kulikov and V. A. Runov note that they were sent "with firepower and many men"^[16].

The occupation administration of the Tsardom of Muscovy systematically brought armed detachments into the lands of the Nokhchi to hold the bridgehead: the compiler of the collection of documents E. N. Kusheva indicates that at the site of the fortress, "by order of the Terek voivodes, a detachment of streltsy and Cossacks was permanently stationed"^[11], and during the siege of 1653 it held "Russian service men, Terek atamans, and Cossacks"^[11].

The occupation administration systematically brought in regular troops to maintain the garrison: historians A. S. Kulikov and V. A. Runov note that in the early 17th century «the garrison numbered more than a thousand streltsy and Cossacks»^[16].

The occupation administration of Tersky Town dispatched armed detachments which, as the Kabardian prince Sunchaley Yanglychevich Cherkassky and his son the Kabardian prince Sholokh reported to Tsar Mikhail Fyodorovich, made their way «across the mountains and through mountain crevices, impassable places»^[11] in order to suppress the defiant communities.

Armed detachments loyal to the metropole carried out incursions into the territories of the Nokhchi mountain communities in order to suppress their resistance: the historian I. Kh. Tkhamokova notes that in 1628 the Kabardian murza Konshov-murza Bitemryukov «went against these "mountain people" together with the "free" atamans and Cossacks and with the "Okochans"»^[14].

Systematic destruction of the Cossack starshyna who had supported Mazepa, through torture and executions, to eliminate the political leadership^[3].

Physical destruction of the armed forces of the supporters of independence in a general battle in order to eliminate the military potential of the resistance^[3].

The appointed occupation administration used unlawful arrests to suppress the resisting Indigenous population: a petition submitted to Tsar Mikhail Fyodorovich by the service Okochans of the Terek town stated that the Kabardian prince Sunchaley Yanglychevich Cherkassky «orders us to be thrown into prison and beaten with the knout without your sovereign knowledge and without guilt»^[15][11].

The government of the Tsardom of Muscovy captured and physically eliminated a resistance leader: historian Ya. Z. Akhmadov states that the tsar "personally decided the fate of the insurgent leaders"^[23], as a result of which the leader Murat Kuchukov, "taken prisoner while wounded, was hanged"^[23].

The punitive detachments plundered and enslaved the population: in a petition to Tsar Mikhail Fyodorovich, the Kabardian prince Sunchaley Yanglychevich Cherkassky reported that they «utterly ruined» the auls «and took many captives»^[11].

The government of the Tsardom of Muscovy organized attacks on the territories of the Nokhchi for the mass capture of prisoners: historian Ya. Z. Akhmadov states that in 1718 there took place a "predatory expedition of detachments of Don Cossacks and Kabardian princes allied with Peter I into the 'Chechen uezd' along the Sunzha and the Argun"^[23], as a result of which "800 prisoners were captured, not counting 'belongings'"^[23].

Seeking to weaken the Hetmanate from within and prevent it from breaking its vassalage, Moscow began artificially fomenting civil war. The Tsardom generously sponsored and armed the internal opposition against the lawful government, provoking the period of the bloody Ruin: "The uprising of Pushkar and Barabash"^[20].

The thrust of the regular army to physically destroy the defiant capital of the Hetmanate. "The strongest and most effective step... was Menshikov's attack... After that, all houses, churches, and monasteries were looted and, in accordance with the tsar's decree, burned"^[2][3][19].

The march of Colonel Yakovlev's and Halahan's troops to physically destroy the Lower Cossack Host and the base of the Sich^[18][3].

Advance of regular Muscovite troops under the command of Golitsyn to suppress the liberation movement: "the Muscovite army was advancing... Orlyk was forced to retreat"^[25].

The occupation administration of Tersky Town deliberately organized a campaign of violent punishment: in his petition to Tsar Mikhail Fyodorovich, the Kabardian prince Sholokh reported that the Terek voivode sent the armed detachments precisely «against your sovereign's disobedient ones — the Michkiz people, against their kabaks»^[11].

The regular army of the Tsardom of Muscovy carried out armed raids on the territories of Nokhchi societies: the historian Ya. Z. Akhmadov states that in 1691–1700 «punitive expeditions were carried out by the tsarist authorities in retaliation against the rebel Cossacks and their Highlander allies»^[23] and records «retaliatory punitive raids by tsarist forces»^[23].

The government of the Tsardom of Muscovy organized military operations against Nokhchi societies: the historian Ya. Z. Akhmadov states that «the measures taken by Peter I to combat the Bulavin «rebeliya» and other uprisings, including on the Terek against Chechnya, were in essence punitive»^[23].

The occupation administration of the Tsardom of Muscovy carried out armed raids into the territories of the Nokhchi societies: historian Ya. Z. Akhmadov states that in 1721 the Astrakhan governor A. P. Volynsky "invited the Don Cossacks and, together with the Terek Cossacks, organized raids to the Agrakhan and Aksai rivers against the Kumyks and Chechens"^[23].

Installation of a government fully controlled by Moscow after the destruction of the capital. Imposition of the loyal hetman Ivan Skoropadsky to ensure the uninterrupted exploitation of the Hetmanate^[1][2].

Immediately after the subordination began the imposition of Muscovite church standards and rites, which led to the marginalization of local culture. This ecclesiastical absorption "was the beginning... of the Russification of Ukraine"^[4][5].

The obligation of the Cossacks to supply themselves with their own provisions and tools for the entire duration of the works at their own expense^[3].

The metropole's occupation administration legally prohibited the free residence of the Indigenous population in Tersky Town, organizing the forced expulsion of unapproved persons and total demographic control: in 1631, Tsar Mikhail Fyodorovich issued a decree to the Prikaz of the Kazan Palace ordering a census of the newly arrived Nokhchi (Michkizians and Okochans) and ruling that those of them «who cannot be trusted» must be «ordered to be expelled out of Tersky Town, and ordered to go back whence each had come»^[15]; to ensure surveillance, in the state register of serving people for the region of the Prikaz of the Kazan Palace for 1637, the central authorities recorded in detail the number of subordinate residents of Tersky Town, including 350 «Okotsky people» and 680 newly arrived «Okochans, and Tatars, and Michkizians, and Shibutians»^[11]; and in 1640, on the orders of the Terek voivode, the Terek syn boyarsky P. Lukin and the clerk F. Belkov compiled a name-by-name register of the population of the Terek slobodas, rigidly recording every household of the subordinate Nokhchi (Okochans)^[15][11].

Taking advantage of the political crisis and having surrounded the autonomy's leaders with its troops, the Tsardom coerced them into signing a new, utterly enslaving treaty. This document radically curtailed the Cossacks' rights and abolished their independence: "The Articles meant the rupture of the Hadiach Agreement of 1658... and substantially narrowed the autonomy of Cossack Ukraine within the Muscovite state"^[21].

The systematic dismantling of the autonomy's democratic institutions. Moscow categorically forbade the Cossacks to elect their leaders independently and to conduct an independent foreign policy: "and without a petition and without a decree of the great sovereigns... a hetman shall not be elected... nor shall they, on their own... write anything to anyone"^[3]. The abolition of the historical right to grant asylum: the autonomy was forced to perform the functions of the Muscovite punitive apparatus and to hand over fugitives: "and those fugitives and people of all ranks shall not be received, nor kept among them"^[3].

The liquidation of the autonomy through the administrative reform of 1707: the transfer of Ukrainian affairs to the Razriadnyi Prikaz with the aim "to convert the Cossacks into a regular army... to break the rights and liberties of the Host"^[3][2][4].

A categorical ban on the hetman conducting foreign policy or receiving foreign envoys^[29][3].

A categorical prohibition on the hetman conducting independent diplomacy or any relations with foreign states, aimed at completely isolating the region in the international arena^[28].

Interference in internal governance: the hetman was officially stripped of the right to punish Cossack starshyna or remove them from office without the approval and judgment of the Muscovite monarch^[27].

To provide ideological justification for the seizure and dismemberment of the territories, the Muscovite authorities initiated the creation of a new historical canon designed to legitimize the occupation retroactively: "Synopsis, or a Brief Compilation from Various Chroniclers on the Origin of the Slavono-Russian People and the First Princes of the God-Saved City of Kyiv"^[24].

The government of the Tsardom of Muscovy fabricated historical narratives to provide legal justification for the invasion of new territories: historian Michael Khodarkovsky points out that in diplomatic correspondence officials deliberately constructed fictitious claims that the Indigenous peoples of the Caucasus had allegedly, since ancient times, been Muscovite "subjects in the Riazan region, who then fled from Riazan and settled in the mountains"^[10].

The liquidation of independent jurisdiction to turn the church into an instrument of assimilation: "The annexation of the Ukrainian church to the Muscovite church in 1686" ^[4]. Moreover, these actions "were carried out not at all in accordance with lawful canonical prescriptions"^[5][3].

The diplomatic entrenchment of spiritual occupation. Moscow secured the inclusion in the treaty of a clause on the jurisdiction of the Moscow patriarch over the Orthodox in Poland: "the higher Orthodox clergy shall receive consecration from the Metropolitan of Kyiv [already subordinated to Moscow]"^[5][4].

Formalization of the occupation regime through sham democratic procedures. The starshyna, terrorized by the massacre, was forced to vote for the candidate favored by the metropole: "Under the circumstances that had arisen, the starshyna simply confirmed Skoropadsky, whom Peter had put forward"^[2][1][3].

The Tsardom of Muscovy exploited the critical position of the Hetmanate to impose a format of subordination, refusing from the outset to take on symmetrical obligations. The tsar's envoy demonstratively rejected the Cossacks' demand for a mutual oath, turning the agreement into an instrument of unilateral absorption: "Buturlin refused to swear an oath on behalf of the tsar, citing the fact that the tsar does not swear oaths to his subjects. No written treaty was concluded at Pereiaslav"^[22].

The occupation administration imposed vassalage under the guise of an equal alliance: historian Murat Yasar notes that the rulers «regarded the shert rather as a military alliance»^[9], whereas historian Michael Khodarkovsky points out that «in Moscow's eyes, the shert now signified an oath of allegiance by the tsar's new and loyal subjects»^[10].

The appointed occupation administration enslaved the Indigenous population: a petition submitted to Tsar Mikhail Fyodorovich by the service Okochans of the Terek town stated that the Kabardian prince Sunchaley Yanglychevich Cherkassky «wrongfully sold 4 of our fellow Okochans»^[15][11] and «took a wife into bondage and sent her off to his kabaks in Kabarda»^[15][11].

Having gained political power over the Left Bank, Moscow immediately attempted to seize the right to collect taxes in order to extract resources directly: "the attempts of Russian voivodes... to introduce their own taxation system in Ukraine led only to revolts (for example... the attempted census of 1666...)"^[3].

The shifting of the financial and logistical burden of imperial wars onto the shoulders of the autonomy: "Provisions for the volunteer troops were supplied by the commoners, who also stockpiled hay for the winter for the army artillery"^[3][2][7].

Direct seizure of the autonomy's economic resources: the right to collect direct taxes from the local Ukrainian population was handed over directly to tsarist representatives^[28].

The occupation administration imposed tribute on the highland Nokhchi societies: an extract from the book of the Terek town's Prikaz office records that the administration sent people «to the Michkizes for the sovereign's yasak»^[11].

The occupation administration used the physical loss of documents to artificially lower the social status of local residents for the purpose of taxing them economically: an extract of the Posolsky Prikaz concerning a petition to Tsar Mikhail Fyodorovich states that after «the sovereign's charter of grant was lost», the heirs of the deceased Nokhchi delegate were stripped of their privileges and «made equal in everything with the Okochans, with the plowing people, and carts and wagons are exacted from them», whereas previously «no taxes whatsoever had been taken» from them^[11].

The occupation administration imposed an annual tribute in kind on the Nokhchi mountain communities (the Shibutians): a report from the Terek voivodes Ivan Andreyevich Dashkov and Bogdan Gerasimovich Priklonsky to the Posolsky Prikaz states that when subjecthood was formalized in 1627, the mountaineers were required «to give yasak at one kul (sack) of honey per year»^[11].

The occupation administration of the Tsardom of Muscovy imposed discriminatory levies on Nokhchi societies for the internal movement of goods: the historian Sh. B. Akhmadov emphasizes that «the Okochans (Akkin Chechens) living in the town of Terki were obliged without exception to pay duty on the various goods and wares they took out for sale to their compatriots in Chechnya and Ingushetia»^[31].

The demonstrative destruction of the town as an act of intimidation for the rest of the country. Peter I personally gave the order: "and Baturyn, as a sign to the traitors (since they resisted), burn entirely as an example to others"^{[1][2][3][19]}.

Public executions and torture in Lebedyn, aimed at the total intimidation of the population and the suppression of any support for the uprising^[3].

Public executions of captured Cossacks, the display of heads on stakes, and the floating of rafts with gallows down the Dnipro for intimidation^[18].

Mass executions of captured Cossacks after the capitulation at Perevolochna and Poltava for the final intimidation of the supporters of autonomy^[3].

The occupation administration of Tersky Town employed mass terrorizing violence: in a petition to Tsar Mikhail Fyodorovich, the Kabardian prince Sunchaley Yanglychevich Cherkassky reported that the military detachments «burned down and utterly ruined many Shibut and Kalkan and Erokhan and Michkiz kabaks»^[11] and «slew many peo[ple]»^[11].

The government of the Tsardom of Muscovy used demonstrative brutal executions to psychologically break the Indigenous population: historian Ya. Z. Akhmadov records that the captured leader of the uprising was "hanged by a rib on a hook in accordance with Peter I's order to P.M. Apraksin ('carry out a cruel death penalty')"^[23].

Deliberate removal of intellectual and historical heritage. The imperial troops did not merely loot — they seized unique documents: "Menshikov managed to carry off... the hetman's archive and Mazepa's library"^[2][3].

The appointed occupation administration used corporal punishment and unlawful arrests: a petition submitted to Tsar Mikhail Fyodorovich by the service Okochans of the Terek town stated that the Kabardian prince Sunchaley Yanglychevich Cherkassky «orders us to be thrown into prison and beaten with the knout without your sovereign knowledge and without guilt»^[15][11].

Complete burning of the kurins (living quarters) of the garrison, as well as the physical destruction of neighboring Cossack defensive strongholds: "the Perevolochna fortress and the settlements around it were destroyed"^[18][32].

During the punitive campaign, the military detachments burned entire auls to the ground: in a petition to Tsar Mikhail Fyodorovich, the Kabardian prince Sunchaley Yanglychevich Cherkassky reported that they «burned down and utterly ruined many Shibut and Kalkan and Erokhan and Michkiz kabaks»^[11].