One of the significant events of Ukraine's struggle for independence during the first period of the National Revolution (1648 – June 1652) was Loev campaign of its troops, which despite the defeat and hetman S.M. Krychevsky’s death nevertheless prevented the Lithuanians invasion. Though for the first time in historiography V. Lypynskyі proved convincingly in his monographic study the falsity of neglecting its role in the Ukrainian-Polish military-political confrontation in the summer of 1649, as well as the works of subsequent scholars (including modern ones) did. But up to now Lithuanian theater of hostilities has been considered traditionally as an event with a minor effect. However this is far from the case! For example although it was not decisive in 1649 and 1651, it is by no means possible to interpret as something insignificant. It is firstly. Secondly, except for confessions ("confession") of captured Ukrainian soldiers and rebels, the lack of Ukrainian origin sources (no one letter, universal, report, diary, message or the story of the battle participant have been saved) is still a major obstacle for the reconstruction by the researchers of more or less a complete picture of the Ukrainian army’s Loev campaign. They only managed to reproduce the most important events in very general / contour features and even then through the prism of information material from Lithuanian and Polish sources. Instead, its course with the Lithuanian units’ participation is depicted scrupulously thanks to the efforts of Polish authors. However in general due to the schematic presentation of the Ukrainian command strategic plan, the steps taken for its implementation, the factors that significantly changed the course of the battle and determined its results, the overall panorama of the event looks somewhat simplified, devoid of internal dynamics and drama and in some ways with the spraying of popularity while imaging the infallibility of the Lithuanian polny hetman J. Radziwill decisions and actions. In order to outline the ways to correct shortcomings and fill scientific gaps the author’s research focus is on identifying a number of actual problems of the Ukrainian army’s Loev campaign. Having analyzed heritage and discovered source base, the author considers those actual problems need rethinking, finding new ways to solve them, further discussions or even starting their study. They included the following ones: to clarify the essence of B. Khmelnytsky's strategic plan, developed in May-June, regarding the place and role of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania (GDL) in the forthcoming campaign against the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth; to find out the time and place of the Acting Hetman S. Krychevsky departure to the Lithuanian theater of hostilities and the route of its promotion; to specify the number of soldiers who took part in the battle on both sides; to find out the essence of S. Krychevsky’s activity since his appearance in Chernobyl (about July, 8) till the capture of Kholmech (July, 29); to determine the nature of his relations with colonel S. Pobodailo, who defended the crossing of the Dnieper opposite Loev; to coverage the action plan of the latter, the reasons for their passivity and inconsistency with the attack of the Acting Hetman on the Lithuanian camp in the morning of July, 31, etc. The author is aware that hoping for their full clarification will be a fiction until the sources which had been created by Ukrainians, the participants of the campaign are found. Nevertheless, the painstaking work of researchers in archives and manuscripts departments of scientific libraries in Ukraine, Poland, Belarus, Lithuania and other countries will undoubtedly enrich the existing source base as a whole and contribute, albeit slightly, to enrich knowledge in the study of this problem.
The Economics of Credence Goods: An Experiment on the Role of Liability, Verifiability, Reputation, and Competition
