Search Results

«Foreign pressure on our people will not eradicate the truth that we are a distinct and independent nation.»  — From the Declaration of Independence of the Ukrainian Far Eastern Republic At the end of the 19th and the beginning of the 20th century, the Far East, then controlled by the russian empire, became home to hundreds of thousands of Ukrainian settlers from Poltava, Chernihiv, and Kyiv regions. The appearance of Ukrainians in the Far East was not accidental: as early as the 17th century, Cossacks, during campaigns along the Amur, established the first settlements. But it was at the end of the 19th century, following Stolypin’s reforms and the active colonization of the eastern territories of the russian empire, that mass Ukrainian migration began — a migration that would permanently transform the face of this region. Boarding of migrants on the steamer “Kherson” at the Port of Odessa before being sent to the Zelenyi Klyn. Photo from a 1903 publication As a result, the lands settled by the migrants became known as the Zelenyi Klyn (Green Ukraine). By the beginning of the 20th century, Ukrainians were establishing schools, cultural societies, cooperatives, monuments, and engaging in book printing as well as the publication of newspapers and journals. After the 1917 revolution, the Ukrainians of the Zelenyi Klyn submitted a demand for autonomy to the Provisional Government, and some even began planning full independence. During the Civil War in the Far East, the Ukrainians of the Zelenyi Klyn did not remain passive observers. From 1918 to 1920, with the support of the Ukrainian Far Eastern National Council, an attempt was made to create the independent Ukrainian Far Eastern Republic (UFDR). Its leaders proclaimed the protection of Ukrainian culture, language, and the right to self-determination as their primary goal. Among the proposed symbols of the republic were a coat of arms with the trident and a blue-and-yellow flag with a green triangle. The main slogans of the movement became: — «Freedom to the Zelenyi Klyn!» — «Ukrainian land for the Ukrainian people!» — «Liberty, justice, and brotherhood!» Delegates of the 3rd Ukrainian Far Eastern Congress. Khabarovsk, April 7–12, 1918. At the center sits the chairman of the congress, Yuriy Hlushko-Mova Attempts to establish independence faced military intervention by the Bolsheviks and internal betrayals, but the memory of the republic remained as a symbol of the struggle for freedom. Thanks to the soviet authorities and modern russia, this period was erased from official sources, yet it is important to remember that besides the Reds and the Whites, there was a third force in the Civil War in the Far East — the Ukrainian Far Eastern Republic. Ukrainians established local regional authorities, held elections, and drafted and adopted a Declaration of Independence. From the Declaration of Independence of the Ukrainian Far Eastern Republic (1918): «We, the representatives of the Ukrainian people of the Zelenyi Klyn, affirm our right to self-determination, to our own authority, and to the protection of language, culture, and traditions on our land.» By 1920, over 11,000 passports of the citizens of the Ukrainian Far Eastern Republic had been printed, some of which are now preserved in the FSB archives of the Far Eastern regions. However, the forces were unequal, and the supporters of red russia emerged victorious — sometimes through deception and bribery, sometimes through violence, committing acts of genocide, as in Nikolaevsk-on-Amur. Unsurprisingly, after the Bolsheviks came to power, the aspirations of Far Eastern Ukrainians were deemed hostile to the soviet regime. The culmination of these repressions was the Chita Trial of 1924–1925. It is this trial that I will focus on in today’s article. Ukrainians of the Zelenyi Klyn in the Chita Trial The trial took place in the city of Chita from September 1924 to April 1925. A total of 122 people stood before the court: former White officers, Cossacks, but most importantly — representatives of the Ukrainian intelligentsia, supporters of the movement for the independence of the Zelenyi Klyn. The presiding judge was Aleksei Hryhorovych Serebryakov. The trial was public: the authorities sought to intimidate the population and demonstrate their resolve in the fight against «counter-revolution.» Photo from one of the sessions; in the front row at the center sits White general Anatoliy Pepelyaev Special attention during the trial was given to Ukrainian figures:They were accused of preparing an uprising, «separatism,» and «collaboration with foreign powers.» During the trial, the soviet authorities branded the following Ukrainian organizations: Newspapers: «Zelenyi Klyn» (Blagoveshchensk) «Ukrainskyi Holos» (Nikolsk-Ussuriysky) «Nash Krai» (Khabarovsk) Organizations: Ukrainian Far Eastern National Council (Khabarovsk) Ukrainian Youth Association «Promin» (Vladivostok) Cooperative «Ukrainska Khata» Blagoveshchensk Cultural Committee of Ukrainians Society of Ukrainians of the Amur (Svobodny) Their activities were declared a cover for «counter-revolutionary work.» Yuriy Hlushko-Mova, Chairman of the Far Eastern Ukrainian Secretariat One of the central figures of the trial was Yuriy Hlushko-Mova — a well-known Ukrainian writer, publicist, and political activist. He stood at the origins of the Ukrainian Far Eastern National Council, organized schools and clubs, and published Ukrainian newspapers in the Far East. At the Chita Trial, he was accused of: — organizing the Ukrainian underground, — seeking to create an independent state of the Zelenyi Klyn, — maintaining contacts with Japan. From the prosecutor’s speech at the trial: «Hlushko-Mova sought to establish an anti-soviet stronghold in the Far East.» During the trial, Yuriy Hlushko-Mova stated: «All my crime before you is that I wanted every Ukrainian here, in the Far East, to have the right to be Ukrainian — to speak in their mother tongue, sing the songs of their fathers, read the books of our writers.» «A government that fears the truth is forced to fear those who speak in their native language.»  Regarding all accusations of espionage in favor of Japan, Hlushko responded: «I was not a spy for Japan. My only dream is that my people live freely and proudly under the sky of the Zelenyi Klyn.» Judge Matveyev asked: «You were imprisoned and brought to trial?» «I was imprisoned under Kolchak and sentenced to death for fighting to organize a Ukrainian kuren, to prevent the russification of Ukrainians and their use in fratricidal warfare.» Hlushko-Mova was sentenced to 15 years in labor camps, with a lifelong ban on residing in the Far Eastern Krai and the territory of the Ukrainian SSR. One of the copies of the Constitution of the National-Cultural Autonomy of Ukrainians in the Far East The atmosphere at the trial was oppressive. Despite the pressure, the defendants often refused to admit guilt in «counter-revolutionary activities,» emphasizing that their goal was not to fight the authorities but to defend the right of Ukrainians to their culture, language, and identity. The prosecutor’s speeches were filled with accusations of «espionage for Japan,» «nationalist propaganda,» and «organizing an armed conspiracy,» yet many of the charges were based on denunciations and assumptions. In their final statements, many defendants addressed not the judges, but their own people, as if knowing that their true court and verdict lay there. Yuriy Hlushko-Mova (in his final statement): «I do not ask for mercy. My only wish is that my people do not forget what we fought for. We are not criminals, we are fighters for truth and freedom!» Ivan Kovalenko (during interrogation): «Faith in the Ukrainian cause is more important to me than life. If loving my native land is a crime — then yes, I am guilty.» Petro Skurativskyi (at the trial): «They took our schools, our songs, our prayers, our land. We only wanted to bring our people back to themselves.»  Fedir Lytvyn (in the session records): «I wanted my children to know what it means to be Ukrainian — even here, in the Far East.» Olena Chaikivska (before giving her final statement): «They throw me into the Siberian forests, but I believe: our songs and our words will live even there.» Sentenced to Execution Seven people at the Chita Trial were sentenced to execution. Among them was Ivan Kovalenko , organizer of Ukrainian clubs in Blagoveshchensk and an active advocate for Ukrainian autonomy in the Far East. Alongside him was Petro Skurativskyi , leader of Ukrainian youth circles in Nikolsk-Ussuriysky, known as a talented publicist and orator. Also receiving the death sentence were: Kostiantyn Marchenko , an officer of the Ukrainian People’s Army accused of espionage for Japan; Fedir Lytvyn , a teacher at a Ukrainian school and initiator of illegal cultural gatherings; Stepan Levchenko , a cooperative member who assisted in supplying underground organizations; Andriy Tkachuk , secretary of one of the cultural organizations, accused of connections with Japanese intelligence; Mykhailo Shvets , a former Cossack ataman who sympathized with the Ukrainian movement and provided weapons to underground activists. Until the very last moment, all of them defended their actions, emphasizing that their struggle was not against the people but for the right of Ukrainians to be themselves — to be Ukrainian. Sentenced to 10–15 Years in Labor Camps Twenty-eight people received long sentences in strict-regime labor camps. Among them was Yuriy Hlushko-Mova , leader of the «Ukrainian Far Eastern National Council,» engineer, theater actor, writer, and one of the main ideologists of the Ukrainian movement in the Far East. He was sentenced to 15 years of hard labor. Similar sentences were given to: Mykyta Lytvynenko , publisher of the newspaper «Zelenyi Klyn,» accused of anti-soviet propaganda; Sava Palamarchuk , a veteran of the Ukrainian People’s Army; Oleksiy Kramarenko , organizer of Ukrainian folk reading rooms in Khabarovsk; Dmytro Lashchenko , who served as a liaison with Japanese consuls; Ivan Nahornyi , a physician; Anna Polytkovska , journalist and publisher; Anton Hanzha , writer and publicist. These people became victims not only of political suspicion but also of the broader soviet policy aimed at destroying the Ukrainian national movement in the Far Eastern region. Sentenced to 5–10 Years in Labor Camps Fifty-one people were sentenced to terms of five to ten years. These were mostly ordinary people — peasants, teachers, cooperators, and craftsmen who were actively involved in the life of Ukrainian organizations. Among them stood out: Fedir Kutsenko , librarian at a Ukrainian folk school (sentenced to eight years in labor camps); Stepan Zubko , a peasant and member of the Ukrainian community in Nikolsk-Ussuriysky (seven years in camps); Mykola Kharchenko , organizer of Sunday schools for Ukrainian children (six years imprisonment); Hryhoriy Onyshchenko , craftsman and activist of the Ukrainian cooperative movement (five years in camps). Most of them were accused of «assisting counter-revolutionary agitation» and «espionage for Japan,» although the actual evidence against them was often extremely dubious. Exiled and Banned from Residing in Cities All defendants received long sentences, and even those who received less severe but still destructive punishments were subjected to exile and banned from living both in the Far Eastern Krai and in the Ukrainian SSR. They were sent to remote regions of Siberia and forbidden to reside in major cities for periods of three to five years. Among the exiled were: Olena Chaikivska , a teacher of Ukrainian language and literature, prohibited from living in Primorye; Vasyl Bondarenko , a typesetter, exiled to the Narym region; Maria Lytvynenko , activist of Ukrainian cultural courses, sent to exile in the Turukhansky region; Ivan Ryabenko , a musician, deprived of the right to live in the cities of the Far Eastern Krai and forced to live in remote villages. For many of them, exile meant the effective destruction of their previous lives: they lost their homeland, profession, and social standing. The Chita Trial became a symbol of the tragedy of the Ukrainian movement in the Far East Under the blows of repression, leaders perished, cultural initiatives disappeared, Ukrainian newspapers and schools fell silent. Yet, despite years of memory erasure, the memory of those who fought for the freedom of Zelenyi Klyn remains alive today in the hearts of Far Eastern Ukrainians — a reminder of the price our ancestors were willing to pay for their national identity. I would like to conclude with a quote from Yuriy Kosmych Hlushko-Mova during one of the trial sessions: «Your strength is in the bayonets. Our strength is in the word. And this word will not perish.» Author: Volodymyr Dubovskyi

Once, our ancestors — Ukrainians driven by poverty, famine, and the yoke of the tsar — moved to the lands of the Zelenyi Klyn (Green Ukraine) with the hope of a free life. Here they built villages, sowed grain, passed on their language, faith, and songs to their children. It was a hope that somewhere, in a land between taiga and hills, they could preserve what had been taken from them back home — freedom, land, the Ukrainian soul. But decades of Soviet rule, and later the Putinist empire, did their work: the free Ukrainians were turned into mankurts . From people who once kept carols and ancestral legends alive, they became faceless «russians», their memory erased to the core. The process was not swift, but it was thorough — carried out through schools, the army, party meetings, television, and, finally, war. Mankurt  — is a person cut off completely from their roots, language, and memory. Without kin, without history, without conscience. « Mankurt is not just someone who has forgotten who he is. It is a person whom the system has turned into a weapon against his own people » , — Chingiz Aitmatov Today we can see it clearly: the descendants of Ukrainians living in the Far East have not only renounced their origins, but have become active participants in the destruction of Ukraine. They are not merely silent bystanders — they have turned into soldiers and propagandists of the very empire that has, throughout history, sought to erase the very notion of Ukrainianness. The Mankurt Governor: Oleg Kozhemyako The surname Kozhemyako  is distinctly Ukrainian, common in the Chernihiv region and Polissia. He himself was born in the village of Chernihivka in Primorsky Krai — one of those Ukrainian settlements where the native Ukrainian language once resounded and the memory of freedom was preserved. It was a land where the Cossack tradition met the harsh nature of the Far East. Yet, over time, all that remained of this memory were surnames. «Post-Soviet elites are often the descendants of those who were once assimilated and then became the agents of a new colonialism», — Yaroslav Hrytsak Today, Kozhemyako serves as the governor of Primorsky Krai, actively engaged in mobilization, the dispatch of «humanitarian aid» to the occupiers, and propaganda for the so-called «special operation». In 2022, he visited Mariupol, effectively taking part in its capture. In 2023, he returned to the occupied city, recording propaganda videos about its «reconstruction» — concealing the fact that Mariupol had been razed to the ground by the russian army. Vera Shcherbina — a Vice-Governor Without Memory The surname Shcherbina  is typical of Ukrainians from Poltava and Cherkasy regions. She was born in the Skovorodino district of Amur Oblast, where a significant part of the population in the 19th–20th centuries were settlers from Ukraine. She worked in the administrations of Primorsky Krai, Kamchatka, and Sakhalin. A bureaucratic career built in service to the system has completely erased any trace of identity. «Mankurtization is one of the empire’s most powerful tools. To turn the colonized into a loyal bureaucrat means to erase collective memory», — Tamara Eidelman During the war, she coordinated the logistics of shipments to the occupied territories. These «humanitarian cargos» came accompanied by medals from occupation authorities, Z insignia, and packages stamped «From Primorye — to the front line». A Ukrainian surname beneath these documents is no longer even ironic. It is a diagnosis. Other Political Figures with Ukrainian Roots Oleg Kozhemyako and Vera Shcherbina are not isolated cases. In the Far East there are numerous officials whose surnames, origins, or biographies point to Ukrainian ancestry. Some of them once openly acknowledged their ethnicity and even emphasized cultural ties with Ukraine. But with the onset of russia’s aggression, they either fell silent or sided with the regime — some quietly, others with rhetoric worthy of a state television broadcast. Their stories illustrate how the system erases memory and displaces identity in the name of obedience and career advancement. «The paradox is that the descendants of those who were repressed and assimilated often become the empire’s mouthpieces», —  Ivan Preobrazhensky Ihor Chemeris — deputy of the Legislative Assembly of Primorsky Krai of the VII convocation, and formerly a vice-governor of Primorsky Krai. The surname «Chemeris» originates from Ukraine, widespread in the Chernihiv, Poltava, and Sumy regions. Chemeris was born in the city of Berdychiv, Zhytomyr Oblast, Ukraine, and later moved to the Far East. Despite his roots, Chemeris actively supports federal policies. Since the beginning of russia’s invasion of Ukraine, he has spoken of the need to «strengthen patriotic spirit,» overseen military events in the region, and visited mobilized soldiers from Primorsky Krai in Kherson Oblast. Yuriy Hryshan — the current mayor of Magadan. The surname «Hryshan» is common among Ukrainians, especially in the Chernihiv and Poltava regions. In the past, Hryshan openly acknowledged his Ukrainian roots and cultural ties with Ukraine. However, after 2022, he fully aligned himself with the Kremlin’s agenda: participating in events supporting the «special operation,» making statements about the «unity of the people» and the need to «support the front». Hryshan’s case exemplifies how even publicly recognized ethnicity can be forsaken in favor of political loyalty. Volodymyr Pechenyi — former mayor of Magadan and governor of Magadan Oblast. Of Ukrainian descent, Pechenyi previously did not hide his roots and even gave interviews in Ukrainian. However, after 2014, and especially following the 2022 invasion, he aligned himself with the Kremlin’s actions, advocating for «unity» and the «fight against external threats». Valeriy Limarenko — governor of Sakhalin Oblast, bears a surname common in the Poltava and Sumy regions. Before the war, he actively cooperated with the military-industrial complex; after 2022, he oversaw Sakhalin’s involvement in sending military equipment and «humanitarian aid» to Donbas. He made statements supporting the «special operation» and referenced the «fight against nazism» in Ukraine. Pavel Storozhuk — acting Minister of Agriculture and Food of Khabarovsk Krai, bears a surname of Ukrainian origin, common in central and southern regions of Ukraine. In the past, he mentioned his family’s rural traditions connected to Ukrainian settlers. During the Soviet era, freed Ukrainians — former prisoners of Stalin’s camps, including members of the OUN-UPA and their supporters — were also sent to the settlement of Provideniya and other areas of Chukotka and Magadan Oblast. After 2022, Pavel Anatolyevich actively engaged in implementing tasks set by the federal center, including food supply under the mobilization economy. He also supported actions in favor of the «special military operation,» demonstrating full loyalty to the official course. All of these people are cogs and gears in a vast, cynical machine where memory is considered a weakness, and renouncing one’s roots is the key to career advancement. For all of them, it is easier to say: «I am not Ukrainian. I am simply a russian official.» Thousands More — Silent, and Often Betraying Thousands of ethnic Ukrainians in the Far East feel that their roots are not russian. Yet most remain silent. Some are afraid. Some are waiting. Some long ago betrayed their own roots. « Empires do not kill with weapons. They kill with oblivion», — Edward Said The price of silence has been lives. Losses of the Russian Armed Forces (data from Mediazona, Gruz 200, Potery.net , and others): Amur Oblast: 285–650 Jewish Autonomous Oblast: 64–210 Khabarovsk Krai: 460–843 Sakhalin Oblast: 232–410 Primorsky Krai: 653–1240 Kamchatka Krai: 154–220 Magadan Oblast: 62–111 These are not just numbers. They are the descendants of those who once sang «Oi u luzi chervona kalyna» on the banks of the Amur, Ussuri, and the Pacific Ocean. Today, they die for a foreign power, for russia. Mankurtism Within the Family: The Author’s Personal Story I am not writing this article with cold, analytical detachment. I am writing it because I witnessed firsthand how the machine of mankurtization works — right within my own family. In 2014, during the first battles for Bakhmut, when this Ukrainian city was captured by Girkin-Strelkov’s forces, my grandmother — an ethnic Ukrainian born in the Far East — called her cousin, who at that time lived in the city under occupation. I heard that conversation. My grandmother tried to convince her cousin that there was Nazism in Ukraine, that everything happening was «American propaganda,» and that they themselves were russian, because they «were born in russia». Part of the conversation, however, was in Ukrainian — their native language since childhood. This is mankurtization — when a person may even speak the language of their ancestors, yet effectively refuses to acknowledge their ancestors’ ethnicity as part of their own identity. A week later, I got a tattoo of a map of Ukraine with the trident — so I would never forget the blood that runs through me. Yes, I made mistakes. I was naive. I followed the wrong people. I trusted the wrong people. But I have not forgotten my great-grandmother’s lullabies. I have not forgotten the stories of my grandfather, deported from Chernihivshchyna. I have not forgotten the sacrifices and the pain that stand behind my surname, behind my family, behind my lineage. I may speak russian most of the time. But I think in Ukrainian. I feel in Ukrainian. I believe as my ancestors believed. And as long as this is alive — I am free. I am Ukrainian. Mankurtization Is a Crime. And a Challenge. Every Ukrainian in the Far East is a descendant of a strong, free people. But without memory, this heritage will disappear. « Memory is an act of resistance. Forgetting is an act of submission», — Timothy Snyder We, Far Eastern Ukrainians, are often, in truth, alone. From russia, we see only contempt and hatred, an attempt to assimilate us or even destroy us. It is painful to admit, but even from some Ukrainians in Ukraine, we sometimes hear rejection — we are called «not Ukrainian», sometimes even «moskali». But no matter how hard, no matter how painful — know that you are not alone . Some remain in the Far East under the «russian world». Some are in prisons. Some are in exile. Our present differs, and often our past as well. But we are Far Eastern Ukrainians. And I believe that together we can build a shared future. A future in which our children can proudly and fearlessly say: « I am Ukrainian! ». A future in which in our villages and cities, the native language will sound again. Where it will not be mocked. Where it will not be punished. But will be respected — as the voice of a living people reclaiming the right to freedom and dignity. Now is our moment. To speak. To write. To remind. And to reclaim the right to be Far Eastern Ukrainians. We exist. We existed. And we will exist.— «Ми — є. Ми були. І будемо.»

«One fool hid her children among the pigs, well, we sent them off together with the piglets for slaughter. We first took this fool with us to the city, but on the way we threw her out because she turned out to be sick...» This is not a quote about crimes committed by russian occupiers in Ukraine today or by German occupiers during World War II. These are the memories of one of the moscow bolsheviks, sent as punitive forces to the Far East, where the descendants of Ukrainian settlers, together with the indigenous autochthonous peoples, tried to create a state independent from russia. Russia and its historians, as the legal successors of the USSR, dryly call this event the « Nikolaevsk Incident ». The same title is used in the russian Wikipedia article. In my article, I want to tell about the horror that unfolded in one of the Far Eastern cities more than 100 years ago. The city of Miykolaivsk-on-Amur (called Miykolaivsk until 1926), named after Saint Nicholas, was the largest port on the Amur River from 1860 to 1920. In 1856, by decree of Alexander II, the Primorsky Region was formed, which included Kamchatka and the lands along the lower Amur. The Miykolaivsky post, which received city status, became the capital of the new region. Here is what the writer Anton Chekhov recalled after visiting this city: «...many kinds of people from russia and foreign adventurers came, settlers were attracted by the extraordinary abundance of fish and fur» However, a few years later, Vladivostok was founded, where the main port was moved, and Miykolaivsk-on-Amur began to gradually decline. But it declined only until the late 1880s, when the city became a center of gold mining, and in just 2–3 years its population increased 5.5 times! Migrants came to the city again, the provincial theater and cabarets gathered audiences again, and local merchants expanded their shops. Gold mining and subsequent economic growth gradually attracted settlers, and by 1897 the population reached 5,668. From 1896–1899, a boom in the fishing industry began in Miykolaivsk-on-Amur. Shipbuilding revived, enterprises for barrel production, lumber processing, and other industries were created. The city became the second most important Far Eastern port after Vladivostok. By 1913, the population of the city reached 14.4 thousand people. There were 2,136 buildings, and a network of trade schools and craft schools was re-established. Soon Miykolaivsk once again became a regional city—this time the center of Sakhalin Region. By the 1917 revolution, the city population reached at least 20 thousand people. Here are, by the way, the census data for the city: 20,203 people, of whom: 13,758 – Malorosses (Ukrainians); 2,621 – Velikorosses (Muscovites); 2,082 – Tungus; 480 – Tatars; 232 – Japanese; 356 – Yakuts (Sakha); 201 – Chinese; 122 – Jews; 62 – Americans; 44 – Koreans; 34 – Germans; 21 – Georgians; 190 – representatives of other ethnicities. At the beginning of the twentieth century, the Ukrainian national movement began to rise in the Far East. In 1914, the first Ukrainian organization in Mykolaivsk-on-Amur was established – the « Mykolaivsk Hromada ». The organization opened a small club where theatrical performances were staged and Ukrainian national holidays celebrated. In 1917, the head of the hromada became a local resident, a descendant of Ukrainian settlers from the Chernihiv region of Ukraine, owner of the local bookshop, Andrii Yeremeyev. Yeremeyev was also elected as a delegate and participated in the All-Ukrainian congresses of the Far East that took place afterward, representing the Ukrainians of Mykolaivsk-on-Amur. In the spring of 1918, the local hromada formed self-government bodies, created the first self-defense units and local police. Later, the residents of Mykolaivsk-on-Amur, at meetings, signed an agreement with the government of the Far Eastern Ukrainian Republic and sent it with their representatives to the city of Vladivostok. Elections to the local council were held. In August 1918, local self-defense units did not allow armed units of the White movement into their territory. According to contemporaries, there was a small skirmish after which the White movement troops were refused support, being told that local residents had no intention to participate in the Civil War on the side of the Whites. However, they were allowed to trade, replenish supplies, and, if desired, stay for the winter. In the winter of 1918, troops of the Japanese Imperial Army entered the city, and a garrison of 350 soldiers from the 14th Infantry Division under Major Ishikawa was stationed in Mykolaivsk-on-Amur. At that time, there were also between 200 and 450 Japanese civilians living in the city. The total armed forces in the city at that time were: 500 – Mykolaivsk-on-Amur Hromada self-defense unit under Andrii Yeremeyev. They had no artillery; weapons consisted mostly of melee weapons and hunting carbines. 350 – soldiers of the Japanese Imperial Army under Major Ishikawa. The unit had two small artillery pieces, incendiary rocket launchers, and more modern weapons than the self-defense unit. An agreement was concluded between the Japanese and the local authorities, under which the Japanese military was stationed in the city and obliged to ensure the safety not only of the Japanese population but also of other residents of Mykolaivsk-on-Amur. Photograph of the entry of Japanese forces under the command of Ishikawa into Mykolaivsk-on-Amur Events of January 1920 On January 3, 1920, Mykolaivsk was besieged by a partisan detachment of 3,000 reds under the command of Yakov Tryapitsyn and Timofiy Naumov. The Bolsheviks had 10–15 artillery guns at their disposal, as well as two cavalry units totaling about 300 riders. The partisan detachment mostly consisted of people born in the European part of russia: Ryazan, Moscow, and Nizhny Novgorod provinces. Commanders Yakov Tryapitsyn and Matviy Naumov were also not local to the Far East. Yakov Tryapitsyn:  born in Muromsky district of Vladimir province. Before the revolution, he worked as an assistant machinist on a steamer in Nizhny Novgorod, was a veteran of World War I, reaching the rank of ensign. During the Civil War, he was sent by the bolsheviks to command the Amur front. Matviy Naumov:  Tryapitsyn’s deputy, from the city of Tver, also a committed bolshevik. Immediately after the siege began, a rebellion of bolshevik supporters erupted in the city, but it was quickly suppressed by the Japanese garrison and the forces of the local Zelenyi Klyn militia. The number of participants was small; all were detained and handed over to local authorities. After judicial proceedings, all detainees were released, with no penalties applied other than confiscation of weapons and a two-day arrest. The fighting for the city began on January 21, 1920. In the first days, despite their numerical superiority, the reds were losing and forced to retreat. Later, having gained support from local Chinese residents and using cavalry, they captured the fortress of Chnirrah in the city’s outskirts by January 25. Immediately after taking the fortress, the bolsheviks began an artillery bombardment of the city. Members of Mykolaivsk’s self-defense forces and supporters of the Far Eastern Ukrainian People’s Republic (UDVR) started mobilizing city residents to retake the fortress. However, Major Ishikawa, commander of the Japanese garrison, unexpectedly refused to participate in the assault, citing Japanese neutrality. He explained his decision with a declaration of non-involvement in the Russian Civil War, agreed upon between Japan and the bolshevik government. As a result, after the Japanese capitulated, a ceasefire was signed on February 28, allowing bolshevik units to enter the city. In return, the bolsheviks promised to guarantee the safety of the Japanese population and their property. Following this, Tryapitsyn’s detachment entered Mykolaivsk. Immediately upon entering the city, the bolsheviks, having captured members of the self-defense force, began arresting the wealthiest and most influential citizens of Mykolaivsk according to a pre-prepared list. This included members of the local Ukrainian community as well as individuals who had signed a letter requesting protection from the Japanese garrison. All detainees were imprisoned in the city jail. Some community members managed to avoid punishment and hid in buildings occupied by the Japanese garrison. Despite maintaining neutrality, the Japanese did not allow the bolsheviks onto garrison grounds. Tryapitsyn feared that once the ice on the Amur River melted, the Japanese would send reinforcements from Sakhalin Island. Reports also indicated that in local villages, bolshevik attempts at propaganda and mobilization led by Naumov were failing. Among the locals, there was a prevailing idea of uniting with the remnants of Mykolaivsk’s self-defense, the local Tungus population, and the Japanese garrison to resist the bolsheviks. Because of this, Tryapitsyn and Naumov decided to disarm and capture the Japanese garrison. On March 11, 1920, bolshevik headquarters chief Timofiy Naumov presented an ultimatum to the Japanese demanding partial disarmament. With the support of the Ukrainian community members, the Japanese garrison staged a surprise counterattack. On the night of March 11–12, the Japanese unexpectedly opened fire on Tryapitsyn’s headquarters, launching rockets. A large part of Mykolaivsk was set on fire. In the attack on the bolsheviks, along with the Japanese garrison, most able-bodied men from the local population also participated. Head of the headquarters Naumov was killed, and the secretary Pokrovskiy-Chornyk shot himself, fearing retribution. Tryapitsyn, wounded in both legs, was carried out of the burning headquarters by comrades. The bolsheviks entrenched themselves in a nearby stone building to organize defense. According to bolshevik accounts, in the first moments Tryapitsyn thought all was lost and asked comrades to shoot him. During the first two days, the initiative remained with the local residents and the Japanese garrison. Later, command was taken by the mining regiment commander Ivan Budrin, who arrived from the settlement of Kerbi with a unit formed from mine workers, mostly Great Russians. Residents of nearby villages attempted to support the insurgents, but they were stopped by a well-armed detachment of Chinese partisans who had wintered in the city outskirts and had agreements with the bolsheviks. Eventually, the numerical superiority of the bolsheviks prevailed. In the four days of fighting, the Japanese garrison together with Mykolaivsk’s self-defense forces was completely destroyed. The bolsheviks lost between 300 and 800 men due to surprise and loss of control during the first day of battle. Major Ishikawa, with the remnants of his garrison, hid in the Shimado store, while Mykolaivsk’s self-defense forces under Andriy Yeremeyev sheltered in the community club building. Both buildings were doused with kerosene and set on fire; anyone who tried to escape was shot. Severely wounded Major Ishikawa was personally killed by Ivan Budrin. Yeremeyev and other defenders from Mykolaivsk who took up arms against the bolsheviks also perished. After the fighting ended, the bolsheviks destroyed and burned the Japanese quarter. The destruction was accompanied by murders, especially by criminal and semi-criminal elements, including the so-called « Sakhalins » —former Sakhalin convicts. Around 80 women from the Japanese colony were killed during these events. Photograph of the Japanese Shimado store in Mykolaivsk-on-Amur During the battles on the night of March 13, the bolsheviks slaughtered all the prisoners of the city jail, including supporters of the independent Zelenyi Klyn, as well as other detainees, including bolsheviks who had even misstepped. Among the killed were Archpriest Serapion (Chernykh), former head of the zemstvo administration Kaptsan, and the former governor of Sakhalin, Baron von Bunge. On March 15 at noon, the last group of Mykolaivsk residents capitulated. Most of the Japanese were killed in combat. Almost the entire Japanese colony (834 people) was exterminated by the bolsheviks. Along with women and children, about 1,500 members of the Mykolaivsk community were killed. Their property—movable and immovable—was confiscated and partially looted. During the fighting, a large part of Mykolaivsk was destroyed by fire. 117 captured Japanese soldiers, as well as 11 Japanese women, were placed in prison. Twelve Japanese women married to Chinese men survived because Chinese families hid them. Among foreign nationals, the English manager of one of the city's largest fisheries, John Fried, was arrested and later executed by the bolsheviks on charges of counter-revolutionary activity. After the defeat of the local self-defense forces and the Japanese garrison, the bolsheviks imposed the rules of war communism in Mykolaivsk: cooperatives were nationalized, money was abolished, equalized supplies were introduced, and other measures implemented. They used confiscated property from officials of the former tsarist and local UDR administration, the bourgeoisie and intelligentsia, and the Japanese colony. However, looting and violence by semi-criminal elements, unrestrained by the local militia or VNK, caused outrage even among some bolsheviks. Discontent also spread among local men, former soldiers of the Chnirrah fortress garrison, and some Far Eastern bolsheviks. The dissatisfied were led by Ivan Budrin, commander of the mining regiment. Despite being a party bolshevik, Budrin, a native of the Far East, disagreed with the policy of Tryapitsin and soon led a conspiracy against him. Budrin actively prepared a conspiracy against Tryapitsin, but on April 22, 1920, by order No. 66 of the commander-in-chief of the People’s Revolutionary Army G.Kh . Eyhe, Yakov Tryapitsin was appointed commander of the Okhotsk Front. According to this order, all partisan detachments under him were converted into units of the Far Eastern People’s Revolutionary Army. On April 23, Tryapitsin, having received the majority of votes at the garrison assembly, arrested his opponents, including Budrin. News of the destruction of the military garrison and the massacre of the Japanese colony in Mykolaivsk shocked Japan and became the pretext for the Japanese government to launch a massive invasion of the Far East, attempting to justify its actions to the world community. The night of April 4–5, 1920, became the time of a Japanese attack, supported by part of the Zelenyi Klyn partisans, on bolshevik authorities and military garrisons in Khabarovsk, Vladivostok, Spassk, and other Far Eastern cities. The Japanese captured these cities, isolating Tryapitsin’s Okhotsk Front from the rest of the armed forces of the Far Eastern People’s Revolutionary Republic. In May 1920, the Japanese command, sending troops from Khabarovsk to Mykolaivsk, received support from a detachment of supporters of the Ukrainian Far Eastern Republic led by Mykola Shevchenko, a local resident and son of a priest from Chernihiv province. At the same time, Japanese ships, taking control of Northern Sakhalin, entered the Amur estuary and approached the Chnirrah fortress. On May 22, 1920, realizing the inevitability of an attack from both sides by anti-bolshevik forces and the defenselessness of Mykolaivsk, Tryapitsin began negotiations with the Chinese consul Zhang Wenhuan and Commodore Chen Shiin for joint action against the Japanese. However, the Chinese, despite pressure, refused to participate in the fighting. Having received no instructions from the central staff of the UDR army, the Okhotsk Front command on April 10, 1920, decided to evacuate the population to the village of Kerbi and destroy the town of Mykolaivsk, as well as the Chnirrah fortress, to prevent the Japanese from establishing a military base. Tryapitsin stated: « It will be very demonstrative to foreign states if we burn the city and evacuate the population. » According to the bolsheviks and Russian Wikipedia, the mass evacuation began on May 23 and ended on May 30, 1920. The main part of the Mykolaivsk population and the partisans were transported by steamships to the Kerbi area. However, it remains a mystery how the bolsheviks managed to transport and move at least 15,000 people across the Amur and 250 kilometers of taiga, and why none of the evacuees were ever found after this operation. Questions about the evacuation vanish when one learns what actually happened and how this « evacuation » was carried out. Below are memories of the bolsheviks themselves about the days of the « evacuation, » taken from materials of an investigation later conducted by the Japanese side: «Our headquarters decided to wipe from the face of the earth the human scum that hindered the realization of ideals for which the best minds of humanity had laid down their heads. Technically, this caused a number of difficulties, since gunfire could attract the attention of the Japanese, who might take measures. Other methods of killing were to some extent disliked by headquarters, and it was decided to kill with cold weapons.» «The local girls did not appeal to me, wild, kicked like mares, but the Japanese women were quiet, obedient, calm.» «All the local kulaks! Each had several cows, horses, cellars, and barns bursting with food, and if you came to them and asked for supplies for our detachment, they would immediately lie and say there was nothing.» «Along the road on the snow lay the bodies of killed people. Pools of blood blackened. When I asked who these people were and when they were beaten, Kostin answered angrily: «We started hitting the bastards, and now they are lying here, enough for us, we just started».» A participant of the Mykolaivsk events, a bolshevik named Aussem, when later asked why these senseless executions occurred, replied: «These are trifles. These people are social scum, and there is no reason to ask such questions.» Photographs of those killed in Mykolaivsk-on-Amur. The photos were taken during the exhumation of bodies by Japanese investigators. Here are additional excerpts from the memoirs of participants and witnesses of the horrific events that took place in Mykolaivsk: «The city was gripped by terror. Beatings continued. People were taken out to the Amur River like sheep, placed on barges and dugouts, carried to the middle of the Amur, and there they were stabbed with bayonets, cut with sabers and axes, beaten on the head with fish mallets, and thrown into the water. Women and girls were handed over from prison to the Bolsheviks—for their amusement.» «Tryapitsin said he would leave a desert for the Japanese, without residents and without people. The city froze, seeing that the final hour had come, and there would be no mercy for anyone.» «After finishing with the city, we went to the villages. After burning one village, in the next we found no one; the local peasants had gone somewhere into the taiga to the Tungus, and there was no way to pursue them.» «One fool hid her children among the pigs, well, we took them along with the piglets and disposed of them. We initially brought this fool into the city with us, but threw her out along the way because she turned out to be sick…» And here is an excerpt from the last radio message of the commander of these atrocities, Yakov Tryapitsin, sent to the Bolshevik headquarters:   «Villages along the entire coastline and the lower Amur have been burned. The city and the fortress have been destroyed to the ground, large buildings blown up. On the site of the city and fortress, only smoking ruins remain, and the enemy, coming here, will find only piles of ash and corpses. We are leaving.» On the night of May 31, with the explosion of the last surviving fortress, Chnirrah, this act of intimidation was completed, and Tryapitsin and his bandits retreated into the taiga near the village of Kerbi. At that time, Mykolaivsk had 1,200 households, over 300 stone buildings, and about 20,000 residents. The Bolsheviks burned and blew up everything—literally everything—turning the city’s landscape into an apocalyptic wasteland. The number of residents who failed or were unable to escape the city and became victims of this cynical massacre amounted to at least ten thousand people. Photograph of what remained of the buildings in Mykolaivsk-on-Amur after the Bolsheviks’ « evacuation » of the city Soon, the detachment of Tryapitsyn, pursued through the thickets of the Amur floodplain, would be arrested along with the entire staff by decree of the regional executive committee of the Bolshevik Far Eastern Republic and handed over to the Sakhalin regional police for trial. By a simple vote, Tryapitsyn and his aides were executed. According to eyewitness accounts: «...in the dirty bushes close to human dwellings… on the edge of the poor village of Kerbi, under a burial mound, bound with ropes, shackled with anchor chains, anarchists, maximalists, and communists — Tryapitsyn, Lebedeva, Zhelezin, Otsevilli-Pavlutski, Trubchaninov, Sasov, and Kharkivsky — found their final resting place. Were it not for a tiny simple cross, common on the poor cemeteries of orphaned paupers, erected by an unknown naive pure soul, no one would have thought that here, in a pit for filth, mutilated, bloodied, spat on, and cursed people lay…». Later, after the final incorporation of the Far East into the USSR, the city would receive the suffix On-Amur, and the Soviet authorities would rebuild it, yet it would remain a small town, more like a settlement. The city would never regain its former glory as the largest port on the Amur. In March 2022, one hundred years after the atrocities in Far Eastern Mykolaivsk, the russian army would commit the same brutalities in Kyiv Oblast. What happened a hundred years ago in the Far East and in 2022 resulted in the murder of innocent civilians from the Ukrainian population. But beyond the atrocities themselves, there is another tragedy: in Kyiv Oblast, the atrocities against Ukrainian citizens were also carried out by units from the Far East, including the 64th Separate Motorized Rifle Brigade of the 35th Army of the Eastern Military District, the 155th Separate Marine Brigade of the Pacific Fleet, and the 5th Separate Tank Brigade of the 36th Army of the Eastern Military District. These units, together with other formations of the russian armed forces, effectively conducted ethnic cleansing, just as the Bolsheviks once did in the Far East. All of this is the result of the Bolsheviks’ victory a hundred years ago: they suppressed the movement for the independence of the Ukrainian Far East and erased from memory those who survived the ideals of the Far Eastern Ukrainian Republic.