Ukraine wasn't seen particularly different from Russia at the time. Also had their own Red army and even most of the black army treatied and joined with Moscow and the fact is pogromists were attacking Russian villages from Ukraine with organized military so no choice there
That last point is really important, and a big part of why the Soviets fought Poland. British communist MP Cecil Malone's book "Russian Republic" about his visit talks about, and even prints some forwarded reports on raids by Cossacks and their pogroms in detail. As he put it, the British public needed to know what they armed and supported, no matter how gruesome.
The question of atrocities is one of the hardest to view dispassionately. No man whose civilization and humanity are real can picture to himself the scenes carried by the baldest tale of torture and mutilation without reaction on his emotions, the more violent if suppressed outwardly. As a safeguard we do not allow such details into print in the ordinary course of things, and where they are discovered under British jurisdiction, in however remote a corner of the Empire, they are put down with an iron hand. Under the Tsarist regime the knout was the ultimate reason of the autocratic Government. What tears flowed unseen, what groans were uttered unheard, no man outside the Okhrana of Old Russia can guess. Yet we did not accuse Englishmen who lived in Russia before the War of shaking hands with murderers and torturers, because the Russian people as a whole, by force or interest, acquiesced in the system, and per- sonal action by foreigners was utterly impracticable. When the Revolution overthrew first the old system, then the moderate Duma, the machinery of law and order fell completely to pieces. The fanatic, the crim- inal, the depraved had their day.
I think that any ordinary Englishman who had been present at a scene where gently nurtured women and children were exposed to the fury and passion of coarse, brutal, fanatical elements, would instinctively and without hesitation have disregarded all question of personal safety and of political philosophy, and would rightly and promptly have defended the weak. Though the excuse is offered that this is vengeance for the oppression of these same classes, such scenes disgrace for ever their individual authors, brand them as dehumanized, and put them outside the pale of humanity. But if the French Revolution is any guide, the great mass of normal men and women will be more and more sickened of blood-shedding. In fact, fear of a counter- revolution, and of counter-atrocities is the only fuel that can keep the witches' cauldron boiling.
As to the reality of the counter-atrocities I unwillingly publish a selection of the Soviet Government's reports on this dreadful subject as a makeweight to the charges published by the other side. I do not vouch for them in any way, but let them carry such weight as their internal evidence of truth justifies. But I am justified in remarking that before the War the Cossacks were for Englishmen a notorious instrument of oppression. Every refusal of intercourse with the Soviet Govern- ment throws them back on the extreme and violent sec- tion, every channel of intercourse with ordered demo- cratic Governments offers them overwhelming motives for thrusting back the extremists and for establishing their rule in moderation and civil peace.
Great short read btw, I really recommend it. Though serious trigger warning for the conclusion as it includes actual reports of pogroms https://archive.org/details/russianrepublic01malogoog/page/n10/mode/2up
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
So I made 2 detailed posts on this recently. I'll link one and just copy the other cause I think it is worth it.
Here is a two comment effort post I made on Rosa's conflict with Lenin over Ukrainian nationhood, which goes into a lot of stuff involving the Rada. https://hexbear.net/post/176089/comment/2176838
Extracted from a conversation so it might be a bit weird
Bolsheviks in Kiev had fallen back however AFTER the Bolshevik uprising in November of 1917 which led to the creation of the Central Rada and thus the creation of the Ukrainian People’s Republic. There was no nation for anyone to recognize until after Bolshevism had significantly become a thing in Kiev, and not by force through Lenin.
They fell back to Kharkiv (east but bordering the north of Donbas for anyone reading our convo who is unaware) because it was a stronger position, and because the central rada had turned on them. The UPR was recognized, or at least witnessed by France, Romania, and Italy on November 27th with the 3rd universal declaration, which importantly did not consider Ukraine a separate nation, but rather an autonomous region of the Russian state. The 4th came in January of 1918 and overwhelmingly voted to become independent. The British don’t recognize the 4th Universal and a fully independent Ukraine until January 22nd of 1918, after the December 1917 military confrontation between the Red Army and the UPR in Bakhmach, and the Bolsheviks leaving the All-Ukrainian congress of Soviets which then recognized the UPR both on the same day december 17th. On december 18th 1917 the Russian Bolsheviks declare war on the UPR. As well as earlier in november Bolsheviks in Vinnytsia west of Kiev seize the city and attempted to move to capture Kiev but got stopped and deported in december. They take Kharkiv on december 26th.
It is not only not really that similar, its also the case that the UPR was not recognized as separate from the Russian state until after the Red Army invaded, which came months after serious Bolshevik influence in Kiev, completely homegrown. It was not just Donbas, Kharkiv, and some pockets in other cities, those groups in other cities had significant influence and roles up to the point of war. One that is pretty debatable as to whether the soviets even declared war on a recognized independent Ukraine given the timeline of independence, recognition, and recognition of independence being different but close. The red army was in Ukraine prior to independence, and armed revolts west of the Dnieper occur before anyone recognizes a Ukrainian government “considered not part of the new Bolshevik regime”
So to simplify, a revolt happens in 1917 headed by Soviet Ukrainians, this helps form the Central Rada which goes to negotiations and the 3rd Universal Declaration is acknowledged, one that states Ukraine is autonomous but NOT independent. The Bolsheviks of Ukraine, along with direct RSFSR support in the east, move in after the Central Rada goes full bourgeoise, with the All-Ukrainian Council of Soviets being banned. Like my comment above says, a lot of homegrown support precedes the Red Army moving in.
The Ukrainian Civil War was not a separate thing the Bolsheviks invaded during. It was a part of the civil war, which itself was a front of the Russian Civil War. The start of the civil war is always given as the conflict between the UPR and the Bolsheviks. The civil war is the result OF the Soviet involvement, made complicated by Poland invading the WUPR and the UPR making a deal with the Central Powers giving them control of ports etc.
I'd recommend also looking into events like the Kiev Arsenal January Uprising for a good idea of how much this was not a simple state vs state conflict, but rather another part of a civil war WITHIN a civil war for the corpse of the Russian Empire. The Bolsheviks are pushed back by the Germans and the rest of 1918 the new Berlin-backed government that couped the Rada rules with little conflict from the Soviets. I assume you mean 1919 by "intervened", which as I've hopefully covered was not involvement in a separate conflict, but reopening a front that had been lost to the Germans. With WW1 over the Bolsheviks decided to liberate their comrades in Ukraine, who again had authentically formed the Rada, been kicked out of it, formed a new government, had grassroots uprisings put down across Ukraine, taken Kyiv, before being forced to retreat. So legitimacy was hardly a thing at this point, and they had comrades stuck in reactionary hands. France takes Crimea but finds itself frustrated by the factionalism and egos of the Whites and leaves. The Bolsheviks had moved in again of course in 1919, with the help of Left-SRs who had fled Ukraine to Russia previously, their UPSR officially mobilized troops to support the Soviets on December 28th 1918. By this time the Polish imperialists had already beaten the WUPR.
The Ukrainian Soviet gov which had fled previously, once again formed but in Kursk, and on Jan 6th 1919 Pyatakov declared the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic. Mostly Bolshevik forces had amassed as partisan forces, with frequent river crossings and volunteers, prior to the formation of the Ukrainian Front on Jan 4th. It had been formed from 2 insurgent partisan divisions september 22nd 1918. This Front would become the 1,2,3 Ukrainian Soviet armies on april 15th 1919. A Crimean army also added May 5th after the 2nd army was moved to the southern front.
The fight of Soviet Partisans in Ukraine against Germans, French, Ukrainians, etc is incredible. The film Shchors about the famous Red cavalry commander Shchors covers this stuff, in fact it was my first exposure to the partisan angle. Cool early scene has them smuggle communists over a river and ID them based on chalk markings on their backs. Chicherin's explanation of the fighting
.there is no army of the Russian Socialist Soviet Republic in Ukraine. At this time the military action that takes place on the territory of Ukraine is between the armies of Directory and the Ukrainian Soviet Government which is completely independent.
One invasion was in 1919, after a conflict in early 1918 prior to Ukraine even declaring itself independent
