Ukraine, the land and its people

by Stepan Rudnytskyi

Closely connected with the character of rivers as roadways, is their importance as the directing lines of the movements of races. The history of the Ukraine tells us how the ancient Kingdom of Kiev penetrated toward the south along the Dnieper, and how the Kingdom of Halich reached the delta of the Danube by way of the Dniester and Prut. Most likely the first expansion of the Ukrainians proceeded along the Dniester, Boh and Dnieper, southward. At the time of the great shifts of the Ukrainian southeast border, the advance of the Ukrainians was always directed southeast, their retreat always northwest. The history of the 16th Century shows plainly how the first pioneers of the new colonization movement—the Cossacks—pushed along the Dnieper, toward the southeast, into the steppe region. Altho it is a commonplace, yet it may be established without doubt that the whole Ukrainian nation took its way southeast along the Ukrainian rivers. To this [[231]]day the national territory of the Ukraine is advancing irresistibly in that direction.

But not only with the southeast has Nature connected the Ukraine. Important borderlands of the Ukrainian territory—Central Galicia, the region of Kholm, Podlakhia, Western Volhynia—with their river system, belong to the Baltic slope. At the same time, the transition from the Pontian river system to the Baltic system is very easy, the divides flat and low. The easy transition from the Dniester to the San and Buh, from the Pripet to the Vistula and the Niemen, was of great importance in the past, when western influences could easily penetrate these Ukrainian borderlands, and is of great importance in the present. If, in the near future, the now antiquated canals are improved and new ones built, the Ukraine will have as good connections with the west as it has with the east. Then the Ukraine may, from a hydrographic point of view, gain great importance as a transition country of important waterways.

By no means accidental is the remarkable fact that the Ukraine has no hydrographic connection with the northeast, the real Muscovite country. Of the country drained by the Don, only the region of the Donetz (which also flows southeast) and the mouth of the main stream belong to the territory of the Ukraine, and that only since a relatively short time. Outside of the Don region the Ukraine has no hydrographic connections with the Muscovite country, which has always had different directions, different channels of traffic, and different centers of waterways.

Modern geography does not consider rivers good natural boundaries, and does not believe in their powers of separation. In the Ukraine, rivers have played almost no part as boundaries. Even the Pripet, surrounded as it is with inaccessible swamps, does not make a good natural boundary between the Ukraine and White Russia. The ethnographic influences on both sides, and even the political [[232]]boundaries are hardly considered. Nor could the rivers be important lasting obstacles; instead of separating they are more likely to connect individuals, and even whole nations. Only as passing, momentary obstacles, they were of importance to the Ukraine in the innumerable wars which were waged on Ukrainian soil, and much Ukrainian blood was carried by them to the sea.

We now come to the relations between climate and people of the Ukraine. The situation of the Ukraine at an equal distance from the equator and the pole, on the southeast border of the European continent, which is so very favored climatically, has given the country one of the finest climates of the temperate zone. The hot summer permits of an extensive exploitation of the ground, the severe winter hardens the body and strengthens the soul, strong winds clear the atmosphere and bring motion into nature. The amount of rainfall is sufficient for the vegetable world, and is as far removed from the superabundance of damp Western Europe, as from the deadly dryness of the Asiatic steppes.

As for the general influence of the Ukrainian climate upon the people, it is in the main similar to that of Western and Central Europe. The Ukrainians are one of the northern peoples of Europe, and they show it by the difficulty with which they become acclimated to the tropical conditions of Brazil and Argentina. There conditions are much worse for the Ukrainians than for the Spaniards, Portuguese and Italians, but at least better than for the English or Scandinavians. The Ukrainian is already accustomed to a hot and long summer in his native land. He accustoms himself quickly and easily to the cold Siberian climate, because the frosts in the Ukraine, despite the short frost period, are very severe. For climatic reasons then, the colonial capacity of the Ukrainians must be even better than that of most of the peoples of Western or Central Europe.

The climate of the Ukraine, which we have discussed in [[233]]a preceding chapter, is very uniform thruout the entire great territory, with the exception of the southern borders. This homogeneity is favorable on the one hand, because it advances the homogeneity of the people, unfavorable on the other hand, because differences in climate as a rule enliven and quicken the course of history of a country. The variations in character of the people and in the mode of living due to the differences in climate give countless impulses to development and to progress.

Despite the general uniformity of the climate, we do find appreciable differences when we compare the northern border regions of our country with the southern ones. The Ukraine has the same climatic peculiarity as France on a small scale, the transition of the temperate to the Mediterranean climate without sharply defined boundaries. In this way some difference of products does arise, which advances the development of trade and commerce.

In our description of the Ukrainian climate, we emphasized its peculiar position as compared with the climates of the adjacent districts of Eastern Europe. Just beyond the borders of the Ukraine, to the north and east, the annual temperature becomes lower and the duration and severity of the winter suddenly becomes very much greater. The Muscovite climate and that of the Ukraine would not be ranked together by anyone who understands anything about the matter. And yet the renowned historian and publicist, Leroy Beaulieu, considers a uniform climate as one of the chief causes of the unity of Russia. In January, he writes, one may ride in a sleigh from Astrakhan to Archangel; the Sea of Azof and the Caspian Sea freeze over just as the White Sea or the Finnish Gulf, the Dnieper as well as the Dvina; the winter wraps north and south in one vast blanket of snow every year. Less strong are the ties formed by the summer, but there is a preponderance of unifying circumstances. [[234]]

Such statements can come only from one who has no conception of climatology and anthropogeography. On such premises no conclusions may be based, except by persons who have previously constructed a hypothesis and now wish at all costs, to prove its validity. For it is certainly generally known that the same winter covers all Scandinavia, Poland, Germany and Northern France together with the same white mantle. In the winter-time one may travel by sleigh not only from Astrakhan to Archangel, but also to Irkutsk in one direction and to Stockholm in the other, and even to Paris. Not only the Dnieper freezes, but also the Vistula, the Oder, the Elbe, and sometimes even the Seine. If we consider ice and snow as the basis of “unification,” very little of Europe remains. For not only in snow and ice should we seek signs of uniformity in climate, but in its general character, in the community of all climatic characteristics. It is true that the Ukraine is part of the Eastern European climatic province, but in this province we may also include almost all of Sweden, almost all of Poland, a part of Austria-Hungary and Prussia, and Supan adds all of Western Siberia, Caucasia and Turkestan as well. Every geographer understands that so great a climatic province must be divided into smaller districts even in climatology, not to mention the details of daily life. Every inhabitant of Southern Russia, whether a Ukrainian or not, feels the difference of the Ukrainian climate from that of St. Petersburg or Moscow very keenly. There is hardly a Russian author who does not describe the fine climate of the Ukraine as wonderfully mild compared to the inhospitable climate of his native land. How keenly, then, does a Ukrainian feel the difference in the two climates, who is forced to live in the cold Muscovite country.