In a better world the soviet invasion of early 1918 would have held and the fracturing that led to the free territory wouldn't have even had to happen. It's not like anarchism was more popular in Ukraine and that was the inevitable path there. Bolshevism caused repeat uprisings in Ukraine following after the October Revolution even independent of soviet plans. They didn't force the anarchists out, they had as much support and claim to a Ukrainian soviet as Makhno did. The Red Army had gotten Kyiv in early winter of 1918, before there was any Free Territory.
Ukraine was as much a part of Russia as siberia or Kazakhstan at that time, but even more urgent to secure, and with a huge local soviet force who declared a separate congress in december of 1917. Lenin didn't like anarchists sure, but that had nothing to do with the decision to invade what was a power base for white armies, and was as much part of Russia as anywhere else at that moment. Before the Central Powers claimed it, The Ukrainian People's Republic was autonomous but not independent, per the central rada itself. there was no reason nor point in time in which the soviets could or would sit back and just arm Makhno, he came about as a result of them losing territory to Germany and the Ukrainian whites, it would be a betrayal of the pretty legitimate all-Ukrainian Congress of Soviets and the succeeding parties.
Like you said, Makhno's popularity is overstated by leftcoms, it was not an imposition upon the will of the local left movement. There was no reason to support an ideologically different, much smaller force in part of Ukraine set up a pro-soviet government when you already formed the basis for the soviet republic there before they did, had previously taken most of the country, and had more popularity across the country as evidenced by the various albeit poorly planned revolts in early 1918. it would be a flagrant betrayal of the Kiev uprising, the Kiev Arsenal January uprising, Vinnytsia revolt, and the actions taken during the soviet control of the country. They chose Bolshevism and fought for it, tried to build it, and where then under control of Denikin and the white armies. This was the Red Army's fight through and through, and they only gained more popularity once the UPR sold out the country to the Central Powers and the WUPR to Poland and the Entente. The Bolsheviks had had control,
Here is a Stalin writing from March 1918, a good example of how much there was already a "Soviet Ukraine", which prior to the invasion by German and white forces shortly after he wrote this, was the power in Ukraine even west of the Dnieper
https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1918/03/14.htm
Here is Stalin a mere 7 days after Makhnovia was declared to exist, as he geared up the new Ukraine Front in Kursk. His words on this stuff matter as he was in charge of this campaign.
https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1918/12/01.htm
But the defeat of Austro-German imperialism and the victory of the German revolution have fundamentally changed the situation in the Ukraine. The road is now open for the liberation of labouring Ukraine from the imperialist yoke. The ruination and enslavement of the Ukraine are coming to an end. The fires of revolution now spreading in the Ukraine will consume the last remnants of imperialism and its "national" hangers-on. The "Provisional Workers' and Peasants' Government" 2 which has risen on the tide of revolution will build a new life based on the rule of the Ukrainian workers and peasants. The "Manifesto" of the Ukrainian Soviet Government, which restores the landlords' land to the peasants, the mills and factories to the workers, and full liberty to the labouring and exploit-ed—this historic "Manifesto" will reverberate like thunder through the Ukraine, striking fear into the hearts of its enemies, and ring out like a joyful peal of bells, gladdening and consoling the oppressed sons of the Ukraine.
But the struggle is not yet over, the victory is not yet secure. The real struggle in the Ukraine has only just begun.
At a time when German imperialism is at its last gasp and the "Hetmanship" in its death agony, British and French imperialism is massing forces and preparing to land troops in the Crimea for the occupation of the Ukraine. They, the Anglo-French imperialists, want to fill the place left vacant by the German invaders of the Ukraine. At the same time, a "Ukrainian Directory" 3 is appearing on the scene, headed by the adventurer Petlura, with the slogan of the old "independence" in a "new" form—as a new screen, one more convenient than the "Hetmanship," for the new, Anglo-French, occupation of the Ukraine!
The real struggle in the Ukraine is still to come.
We have no doubt that the Ukrainian Soviet Government will be able to administer a fitting rebuff to the new uninvited guests—the would-be enslavers from Britain and France.
We have no doubt that the Ukrainian Soviet Government will be able to expose the reactionary role of the adventure-seekers of the Vinnichenko-Petlura camp who, willingly or unwillingly, are paving the way for the incursion of the Anglo-French enslavers.
We have no doubt that the Ukrainian Soviet Government will be able to rally around itself the workers and peasants of the Ukraine and lead them with credit to battle and victory.
We call upon all loyal sons of the Soviet Ukraine to come to the aid of the young Ukrainian Soviet Government and help it in its glorious fight against the stranglers of the Ukraine.
The Ukraine is liberating itself. Hasten to its aid!
I wouldn't call that an imposition on a state that had existed for 7 days. Not to be contrarian, it is just I have read too much about this today and think the Ukrainian Soviet's case is a solid one and that their legitimacy and truth in that time are worth defending. We often (myself included) remove the agency of the Ukrainian communists, as if there was this natural nationalist movement and the natural left movement was anarchism. But no Bolshevism had already arisen in Ukraine and had even briefly ruled the nation. It was far from a puppet, or servant to Soviet Russia. And the all-Ukrainian Congress of Soviets and their various other forms in the years that followed deserve recognition for that
deleted by creator
In a better world the soviet invasion of early 1918 would have held and the fracturing that led to the free territory wouldn't have even had to happen. It's not like anarchism was more popular in Ukraine and that was the inevitable path there. Bolshevism caused repeat uprisings in Ukraine following after the October Revolution even independent of soviet plans. They didn't force the anarchists out, they had as much support and claim to a Ukrainian soviet as Makhno did. The Red Army had gotten Kyiv in early winter of 1918, before there was any Free Territory.
Ukraine was as much a part of Russia as siberia or Kazakhstan at that time, but even more urgent to secure, and with a huge local soviet force who declared a separate congress in december of 1917. Lenin didn't like anarchists sure, but that had nothing to do with the decision to invade what was a power base for white armies, and was as much part of Russia as anywhere else at that moment. Before the Central Powers claimed it, The Ukrainian People's Republic was autonomous but not independent, per the central rada itself. there was no reason nor point in time in which the soviets could or would sit back and just arm Makhno, he came about as a result of them losing territory to Germany and the Ukrainian whites, it would be a betrayal of the pretty legitimate all-Ukrainian Congress of Soviets and the succeeding parties.
Like you said, Makhno's popularity is overstated by leftcoms, it was not an imposition upon the will of the local left movement. There was no reason to support an ideologically different, much smaller force in part of Ukraine set up a pro-soviet government when you already formed the basis for the soviet republic there before they did, had previously taken most of the country, and had more popularity across the country as evidenced by the various albeit poorly planned revolts in early 1918. it would be a flagrant betrayal of the Kiev uprising, the Kiev Arsenal January uprising, Vinnytsia revolt, and the actions taken during the soviet control of the country. They chose Bolshevism and fought for it, tried to build it, and where then under control of Denikin and the white armies. This was the Red Army's fight through and through, and they only gained more popularity once the UPR sold out the country to the Central Powers and the WUPR to Poland and the Entente. The Bolsheviks had had control,
Here is a Stalin writing from March 1918, a good example of how much there was already a "Soviet Ukraine", which prior to the invasion by German and white forces shortly after he wrote this, was the power in Ukraine even west of the Dnieper https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1918/03/14.htm
Here is Stalin a mere 7 days after Makhnovia was declared to exist, as he geared up the new Ukraine Front in Kursk. His words on this stuff matter as he was in charge of this campaign. https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1918/12/01.htm
I wouldn't call that an imposition on a state that had existed for 7 days. Not to be contrarian, it is just I have read too much about this today and think the Ukrainian Soviet's case is a solid one and that their legitimacy and truth in that time are worth defending. We often (myself included) remove the agency of the Ukrainian communists, as if there was this natural nationalist movement and the natural left movement was anarchism. But no Bolshevism had already arisen in Ukraine and had even briefly ruled the nation. It was far from a puppet, or servant to Soviet Russia. And the all-Ukrainian Congress of Soviets and their various other forms in the years that followed deserve recognition for that