ОСМАНСЬКО-ТУРЕЦЬКИЙ ВЕКТОР ДИПЛОМАТИЧНОЇ ДІЯЛЬНОСТІ ГЕТЬМАНА ІВАНА ВИГОВСЬКОГО ТА ПЕРЕМОГА В МОСКОВСЬКО-УКРАЇНСЬКІЙ ВІЙНІ 1657 – 1659 рр.

The purpose of this study is to analyze the historical development of the foreign policy of the Ukrainian Cossack state, particularly during the rule of Hetman Ivan Vyhovskyi, which took place under conditions of internal political strife and Moscow’s aggression against Ukraine, especially in the context of fomenting civil war. Under these circumstances, the hetman not only established diplomatic relations with the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, but also initiated the Black Sea vector of foreign relations to strengthen international support in resisting the aforementioned aggression. The study of Ukrainian and Turkish written sources and historiography, along with the objective interpretation of the information obtained regarding the stated issues, enables a thorough reconstruction of the course of Hetman Vyhovskyi’s foreign policy activities and the joint military campaign. In this context, particular attention is paid to the Ukrainian embassy to Bakhchysarai and the presence of a large diplomatic mission from the hetman to Ottoman Türkiye, which held strategic significance for the development of relations between these countries and reflected their mutual interest in deepening such ties. The circumstances resulting from Muscovite aggression brought to the fore the issue of implementing the terms of the agreements, especially the organization of a military campaign against the enemy. The research methodology is based on adherence to the principles of historicism and historical source studies, ensuring scholarly objectivity and concrete-historical systematization, as well as the principles of interdisciplinarity and the establishment of the reliability and informational value of the identified facts and data. The scientific novelty of the research consists in the civilizational interpretation of the historiosophy of relations between Cossack-Hetman Ukraine, the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, the Crimean Khanate, and the Sublime Porte, aimed at the defense of Ukrainian lands in the context of state-building. It also lies in the application of the author's methodology for interpreting relevant historical events based on the available information, including Ottoman-Turkish written sources and historiography. Conclusions. In conclusion, the establishment of diplomatic relations between Hetmanate Ukraine and the Sublime Porte during the rule of Hetman Ivan Vyhovskyi was a prolonged but ultimately successful process. It is worth noting that Hetman Vyhovskyi, an alumnus of the Kyiv-Mohyla Collegium (now the National University of Kyiv-Mohyla Academy), was a seasoned statesman who understood the necessity and strategic value of the “Turkish alternative” for the Cossack state, caught between the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth, the Muscovite Tsardom, and the Crimean Khanate. He participated in negotiations on Ukraine’s behalf as part of a large diplomatic mission of approximately one hundred individuals, led by the Cossack Yarema Petranovskyi—evidence of the Hetmanate’s active foreign policy toward the Ottoman Empire. As a result of the Hetman government’s successful diplomatic efforts, treaties were concluded between the Ukrainian Cossack state, the Crimean Khanate, and the Ottoman Empire. Based on mutual agreement, a joint military campaign was launched to defend against Muscovite aggression, which proved extremely successful for the allies: the Muscovite army suffered a crushing defeat in the Konotop War, the fortress of Konotop was liberated, and another frontier fortress was retaken from Muscovite control. The strengthening of the Black Sea vector of Cossack diplomacy had strategic significance for the economic development of the Hetmanate. The preservation and continuation of this Black Sea orientation were evident in the foreign policy of Vyhovskyi’s successors and, in my view, remain a relevant historical factor today. It should also be emphasized that the preservation and development of a democratic system of governance, the status of the Ukrainian language as the official state language, and the principle that the administration of the state should be conducted by ethnic Ukrainians, were among the central priorities of Hetman Vyhovskyi’s domestic policy. In contrast, the foreign policy of the Muscovite Tsardom toward Ukraine was based on fomenting civil war within the Hetmanate and attempting to seize Ukrainian territory. It is evident to me that the Russian state continues to demonstrate the same approach toward Ukraine today, as evidenced by the ongoing Russo-Ukrainian war, which began in 2014. Key words: historical source, diplomacy, Hetman, Vyhovskyi, Bakhchysarai, Istanbul, treaty, Muscovite aggression, Konotop, Ukraine, victory, political language