To the Russian authorities, he is a criminal; to his people, an ataman. For a Cossack, there is nothing new under the sun. Except this is no historical novel.
The author, whose statement we present to you, is only slightly older than, for example, Jan Palach was… He has at least two years of combat experience in the defense of Ukraine behind him. He has experienced the loss of comrades-in-arms and his own severe injury in battle. He has faced decisions that most of us will never have to make in a lifetime. And at his back, he has the official and unofficial hounds of the Russian regime.
The Great Don Army and the Convention of 1921: Historical Path and Contemporary Perspectives
S. “Shvach” Kuchinsky | May 28, 2026
Introduction
Allow me to introduce myself. My name is Saryn Kuchinsky; I am a representative and member of the executive committee of the Don Republican Movement, a veteran of combat operations, and a member of the Defense Forces of Ukraine. I am the ideologue, leader, and founder of the Cossack nationalist and traditionalist movement “Ѣзиковъй Ѣртаул” (People’s Vanguard). By nationality, I am a Cossack.
As a member of the executive committee, I speak here on behalf of the Don Republican Movement (DRM), the contemporary successor to the traditions of Don democracy. This movement represents the interests of a wide spectrum of the patriotic population of the Great Don Army and consistently advocates for the independence of our homeland after a century of Moscow occupation. Everyone, with the exception of collaborators and later immigrants who have not had time to absorb the culture of the Don, supports this step. That is precisely why people of various political and economic views have gathered in emigration, agreeing on one thing: The Don is not Russia!
Historical Context of the 1921 Convention
In the years 1920–1921, the Ukrainian People’s Republic and the Great Don Army found themselves in a very similar situation: both states lost their sovereignty as a result of the defeat of anti-Bolshevik forces, yet their governments and armies continued in exile. The struggle against the Moscow Bolsheviks became their common cause. As early as May 1918, the Ataman of the Great Don Army, Pyotr Krasnov, together with His Serene Highness, the Ukrainian Hetman Pavlo Skoropadsky, initiated negotiations between the Don government and Ukraine. Preliminary agreements were prepared, and representative offices of both parties were opened in Kyiv and Novocherkassk. The Don sent its mission led by Cheryachukin and Svechin.
This demonstrates that cooperation between Don and Ukrainian national institutions began at the very moment the Don emerged as a full-fledged subject of international law.
Even in emigration, the ties between the Don and Ukrainian political elites were not severed. On April 2, 1921, a treaty was signed that strengthened and expanded mutual cooperation and confirmed a common stance toward Moscow. These documents represented the mutual recognition of two young statehoods and the confirmation of the legitimacy of their governments.
Such a partnership was part of a long-term strategy for building collective security in the region without the influence of Moscow, whether Red or White. It was in direct contradiction to the White Guard generals’ ideas of a “one and indivisible Russia,” just as today’s Moscow is irritated by the independence and the striving of neighboring nations for self-sufficiency. Back then, when we temporarily leaned on the White Guards, we made an unpardonable mistake. The fall of the Don to the Bolsheviks was caused, among other things, by the anti-Cossack activities of Russian officers who had fled to the Don. A surprising number of parallels can be found between the events of a hundred years ago and today. It is no coincidence: the enemy has not changed because back then, its complete disintegration did not occur.
The alliance ratified by the 1921 Convention was therefore not merely an emergency tactical step in a critical situation, but a conscious choice to join the forces of the Don and Ukrainian nations against a common enemy.
Continuity and Historical Memory
The Don Republican Movement considers itself the successor to the Don Democratic Group abroad, which operated until 1922, and simultaneously the heir to the Don Republic of 1918–1920 and its political traditions. After the defeat in the war for independence and the final occupation of the Don by Soviet Russia, the remnants of the Don leadership went into exile, where they formed the Government of the Great Don Army in Exile (whose current Ataman is the Czech Alexej Kelin, Ed. note) and the Don Democratic Group, composed of former deputies and other political representatives of the Republic.
We continue the line begun in 1921 under new historical conditions. Many generations before us carefully preserved the idea of independence and national identity. In emigration openly, through political programs and visions of a future order; at home then covertly, within families and among those closest.
Activists of the Don Republican Movement emphasize their continuity with this tradition. We work in the region with our supporters, analyze the situation on the Don, organize thematic events, and unite various political and ideological currents—from traditionalists and nationalists to democrats and liberals. We are creating a political core around the movement capable of taking responsibility at the decisive moment and transforming into a provisional government. We disseminate materials proving the existence, legitimacy, and status of the Great Don Army as a nation under Russian occupation that lacks the opportunity to freely express its will.
Currently, the inhabitants of the Prisud possess only historical memory of former times but see no adequate or effective steps leading to the restoration of their true representation. Our adversaries have skillfully seized the initiative every time and shifted public debate to a level comfortable for them: the defense of an abstract motherland, Orthodoxy, or the oppressed throughout the world, but not the rights and freedoms of the Cossack lands. Our enemy uses history as a weapon of mass destruction of human thought, and that is no secret. The answer, however, can only be the transformation of historical memory into an active political resource, into the foundation from which the Don nation and the Cossack people must rise again. This is the answer we are duty-bound to give to the lies and provocations with which the Russian authorities and local opponents of freedom and independence seek to smear us.
We are convinced that the future Don Republic can only be considered by relying on the historical heritage of legitimate state institutions that had the support of the population. Perhaps today in the Don, few still remember Pyotr Krasnov, and few know of the activities of the Free Cossack Movement or the Cossack National Liberation Movement in emigration during the 20th century. However, almost every schoolchild, student, worker, farmer, pensioner, or member of the intelligentsia feels a special stir when the military anthem “The Orthodox Quiet Don has surged, has stormed…” is heard. And as for the national tricolor—blue, yellow, and scarlet—perhaps only an immigrant, predominantly from Russia, who has not undergone true integration into the local environment, would fail to name them in the correct order.
In the Don and the Kuban, the expression “to go to Russia” still means in common parlance to travel beyond the borders of the Prisud, north of Voronezh. To this day, people from Russia are referred to as Moskals, while the locals themselves are never called that. On the surface, they may show loyalty to Moscow, but such small details reveal a deeply rooted national identity. In part, this is the legacy of the brief but distinct and fundamental history of the Great Don Army from 1918–1920.
The Present: Don Volunteers as the Living Fulfillment of the Convention
The Cossacks fighting today in the ranks of the Defense Forces of Ukraine are fulfilling the commitment made in 1921—to support Ukraine in the struggle against Moscow’s aggression. I was no exception: from 2023 until the moment of the severe injury I sustained during a combat mission in the Sumy direction in 2025, I performed my military duties. We were and are still inspired to take this step by the centuries-long struggle of the Don Army for its own existence—from Chervleny Yar and the leader of the Khopyor Cossacks, Sary Azman, through Stepan Razin, Kondraty Bulavin, Yemelyan Pugachev, the Gruzinov brothers, Vasily Generalov, to the Chernetsovites, the soldiers of the Don and Kuban Armies, the Bicherakhov brothers, Pyotr Krasnov, Mikhail Frolov, activists of the Free Cossack Movement, and members of Cossack military formations that fought against the Russian-Bolshevik forces.
Special mention is deserved by the Cossack heroes of allied duty and the national liberation struggle who laid down their lives for the independence of Ukraine and the liberation of Cossack lands during the period following the start of the full-scale Russian invasion. These are our comrades, Cossack nationalists: Dmitry “Wolf” Korshunov, Sergey “Teren” Popov, Daniil “Krüger” Utkin, and Timofey “Enej” Anufriyev, fighters of the Free Cossacks Detachment. Each of them arrived at the idea of the independence of the Don and Kuban by their own path; each came to Ukraine differently and accepted it as their new home and sanctuary. They are united by the fact that they all voluntarily entered the fight for Ukraine, thus fulfilling the allied duty between our nations against a common enemy.
We consider the fallen Cossack volunteers to be the true heirs of the heroes of the Don Republic and the independence movement of 1918–1920. They sacrificed their lives for our freedom and yours, and their names should be preserved in historical memory. Just as the honor of defending the Prisud fell to the young Chernetsovites, often barely out of school, a similar task has fallen to today’s volunteers. However, they face a whole range of problems and need more systematic support. Many still do not have their legal status resolved in Ukraine, lacking permanent residency or citizenship, and they encounter obstacles when processing documents. Although the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine passed a law on the status of foreign volunteers, not everyone manages to utilize this option for various reasons. I hope that this event will contribute to ensuring that as many deserving Cossacks as possible obtain Ukrainian citizenship as the highest recognition of their merits.
I also cannot help but express the wish to preserve the memory of the Cossack nationalists who have fallen for Ukraine since 2022 through a monument or a memorial plaque. I therefore turn to those present with a request for support for this initiative. Ukraine should not forget its heroes—neither Ukrainians nor the foreigners who laid down their lives for it.
Perspectives and Proposals for Cooperation
Establishing a political dialogue between Ukraine and the Don Republican Movement is beneficial for both sides. For Ukraine, recognizing the Don Republican Movement as the successor to the Don Republic means gaining a legitimate ally in the southern region. This weakens Moscow’s rear and strengthens Ukraine’s position among free nations. For the Don region and the so-called “South of Russia” in general, cooperation with Ukraine represents support for the preservation of national identity and the idea of republican independence. We can mutually exchange experiences and resources. In the future, Ukraine can assist in the restoration of a healthy political culture and justice, while the Don Cossacks can be a reliable partner in strengthening the eastern flank of Ukrainian security.
We propose several concrete steps:
A working group or a platform for permanent dialogue between Ukrainian institutions and the Don Republican Movement. Such a group could prepare joint initiatives, provide legal support to Don volunteers, develop educational and cultural projects, and coordinate humanitarian and other forms of cooperation.
International legitimization. Support from Ukrainian partners in promoting similar initiatives would increase the international legitimacy of our demands and activities.
Such systematic work would create a solid foundation for long-term cooperation. It would strengthen Ukraine’s eastern flank and simultaneously provide a new impetus to the movement for the restoration of the Don Republic. Already today, representatives of the Don Republican Movement participate in various events and find support in Lithuania and other countries. We hope that official Kyiv will also support these efforts and become a true partner of the Don Republican Movement in the dialogue about the future.
Conclusion
We return in our thoughts to events more than a hundred years old and say:
“Our journey did not begin yesterday. It continues across generations.”
The Great Don Army of 1918–1920 and its allies left us a legacy: to stand together in the struggle for freedom and the right to self-determination. Today, Ukraine and the Don are united by a common goal—freedom and independence. May our joint steps become a continuation of the civic tradition of our ancestors.
I call upon all present to work together in the name of Ukraine’s freedom and the rebirth of the Don Republic. We are duty-bound not to fail the trust of society and to build together a new reality in which the Don region finds its deserved place in the free world.
Thank you for your attention.
