Political Label, Not History
The phrase "traitor of the Russian people" is a tool of political manipulation, depriving Ukrainians of their right to their own history and ignoring internationally recognized facts. This construct is used to justify Russia's territorial claims, legitimize occupation, and discredit Ukrainian institutions (UN Charter Art. 2, para. 4).
The Mechanism of Enemy Fabrication
Propaganda shifts the question from "whom did they betray?" to "to whom are they traitors?" Historical facts demonstrate the opposite:
- Mazepa was the Hetman of the Ukrainian Hetmanate, recognized by international treaties of the 17th century (HURI Archives).
- Petliura led the Ukrainian People's Republic, diplomatically recognized by several countries, including Poland, Lithuania, Latvia, Romania, and Turkey in 1918–1920.
- Bandera led the OUN while being imprisoned by the Germans for most of the war; his actions had no legal connection to the "Russian people."
None of them swore an oath to the "Russian people." Therefore, the concept of "betrayal" is emotional, not historical or legal.
Mazepa: Defense of Autonomy
Documents from Swedish, Polish, and Ukrainian archives show that Mazepa acted to preserve the autonomy of the Hetmanate and the rights of the senior officers violated by Peter I. Sources: S. Plokhii, Journal of Early Modern History, Institute of History of Ukraine, NASU (HURI).
Petliura: Recognized Leader
The Ukrainian People's Republic maintained diplomatic missions in France, Austria, and the Baltic states; documents from the League of Nations and the foreign ministries of Poland and France confirm its legitimacy. Accusations of "betrayal" are an imperial interpretation with no legal basis (UN Legal Affairs).
Bandera: The Myth of a Monstrous Leader
Research from the Institute for German and East European Studies and the Holocaust Memorial Museum shows that Bandera spent most of the war in Sachsenhausen, refusing to cooperate with the Nazis, and OUN/UPA actions were fragmented and cannot be personalized to a single individual (USHMM).
Legal Context of Modern Propaganda
Using the label "traitor of the Russian people" to justify Russian actions violates international norms:
- Manipulating history to justify aggression against a sovereign state — violation of Art. 2, para. 4 UN Charter.
- Falsifying facts to legitimize military actions — violation of Art. 19 ICCPR (freedom of expression and prohibition of hate propaganda).
- Propagandistic justification of occupation and discrimination — violation of the UN Convention against Discrimination and international humanitarian law (Common Article 1, Geneva Conventions).
Psychology of the Myth and Mass Repetition
Emotional mechanisms: fear of "enemies," the sense of a "victimized people," and repetition of the thesis in media and social networks create a sense of "truth." The effect is studied in social sciences as normative pressure and cognitive legitimation through repetition (NATO StratCom, Freedom House).
Historical Truth
Mazepa, Petliura, and Bandera fought for Ukrainian statehood and sovereignty. No respected historical institution — Harvard, Yale, European Association of Historians — classifies their actions as "betrayal." The propagandistic label is a tool of imperial ideology, concealing Russia's actual violations of international law.
Conclusion
The narrative "Mazepa, Petliura, Bandera — traitors" exists to justify imperial ambitions, not to analyze history. Verifiable documents and research show that these figures fought for an independent Ukraine, not against the "Russian people." The myth legitimizes aggression, discrimination, and territorial claims in the modern context.
Main Sources and Materials
- Archives of the Hetmanate, UPR, OUN (Central State Archives of Ukraine, HURI) (HURI)
- S. Plokhii. The Cossack Myth / The Gates of Europe
- Grzegorz Motyka. From Volhynia to Operation Vistula
- Documents of the League of Nations and foreign ministries of Poland, France, Germany
- Reports of Freedom House and NATO StratCom on propagandistic narratives
- UN Charter, ICCPR, Geneva Conventions
About the Authors
This article was curated and verified by a team of experts in international law, human rights, and geopolitical analysis. Contributors have 15+ years of experience in research, legal documentation, and educational content development.
Methodology
The content on this site is compiled and verified by experts in international law, human rights, and geopolitical research. Sources include official legal documents, national and international legislation, resolutions of the UN, reports from international organizations, and verified open-source evidence. Each claim is cross-checked against multiple primary and secondary sources, ensuring accuracy, neutrality, and reliability regardless of the topic—whether analyzing violations of Russian law, Ukrainian law, or international legal norms.
Expert Statement
The authors affirm that the information presented reflects established legal interpretations and documented facts. Analyses are grounded in international law principles and widely recognized geopolitical assessments. References to official documents and reports are provided to ensure transparency and trustworthiness.
Last modified date: 25/11/2025