The Third Path or An Imperial Roundabout?

2021

Closed access Metadata (CSL-JSON)
DOI 10.25162/jgo-2021-0021
Data confidence 70 medium
How this score is calculated

It is built from checkable properties of the record itself: whether the article has a DOI, how many independent sources confirmed its data, whether the required fields are filled in, and how recent the latest confirmation is. Disagreement between sources and a missing identifier lower it. A value of 80 or above means the record was published without further checking; 60 to 79 means it is published at reduced confidence, with a manual check advisable. A record verified by an editor by hand is never pushed below 90 by a recalculation. This scores our data about the article, not the article itself.

Abstract

This article reevaluates the Ukrainian state of Pavlo Skoropadsky without suscribing either to a nation-building or a class-centered narrative. It argues that the regime’s commitment to “normalcy” predisposed it towards reliance on “professionals” rather than politicians - with a declared purpose of overcoming “politics.” The state was intended to be a “technocratic” one, offering evidence of what “specialists” in power were capable of achieving. That said, the effect was not the overcoming, but the intensification of “politics.” Many of the “specialists” working within Ukrainian state institutions harbored hopes of turning Ukraine into a nucleus for a restored “Great Russia.” Still, this is not a story of sabotage, but of an ad hoc transformation, with numerous and diverse advocates of imperial restoration reaching a critical mass among Skoropadsky’s technocrats to influence the state’s trajectory. Thus, Skoropadsky’s tenure in power became, inadvertently, a time of growth and consolidation for a “Great Russia” lobby that was equally anxious about an independent Ukraine and the Bolshevik domination of Russia.