Thread by @kamilkazani

It seems that in Kazakhstan we are witnessing a textbook example of the loss of independence. Which is very similar to how Ukraine (the Hetmanate) was gradually absorbed by the Muscovy in the 17th c.

Although Ukraine recognised Tsar as its ruler in 1654, it didn't immediately turn to a Muscovite province. Cossacks considered their relations with Tsar to be equal and their fealty conditional. They literally presented a list of conditions to the Tsar, shocking the Moscow envoys

So they didn't intend to turn into slaves, холопы, of the Tsar but rather viewed him as their constitutional monarch alike the Polish-Lithuanian one. And yet, they were very quickly reduced to холопы. How did it happen?

The most important reason was the following. The Cossacks' leaders - казацкая старшина - made two mutually exclusive demands to Moscow.

- Don't interfere to our internal affairs

- Defend us from our internal enemies

Theoretically Hetmans and Colonels wanted independence. But in practice they repeatedly asked Moscow for protection from the political rivals and revolts of lower classes. However, it is logically impossible to rely on someone's protection and be independent from the protector

The architect of Moscow-Ukrainian alliance Khmelnitskii used to be somewhat independent. But his successor hetman Vygotski directly asked Tsar to send garrisons to Ukrainian towns 'to extirpate revolts'. So he basically used Muscovite army as policing force

By the times of hetman Bruhovetskii Ukraine was turning into the province. He asked the Tsar for bodyguards to his personal protection from potential assassins

To sum up. The absorption of Ukraine by Muscovy was not only the initiative of Moscow but also the initiative of Ukrainian leadership. They asked Moscow to send them garrisons, and personal guards for the rulers. Basically they asked for protection against their own subjectscts

Relying on foreign armies as your internal policing force - that's how you lose independence. When ruler A asks ruler B for 'armed men', he might not lose his country's sovereignty de jure, but he certainly loses its de facto. Especially if he asks again and again