Yes, the book by Met. Ilarion Ohienko on the history of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church is one and it contains a bibliography on the subject.
The Old Believers' "istynno" is different from the one that was used in western Ukraine under Poland - no Muscovite gendarmes, Reverend Sir, you again seem intent on confusing things when they contradict your view of the world - or add a dimension to it that you might not have been aware of . . . forgive my impertinence, but you do tempt me so!
Eugene Ivankiw wrote an article on the history of the Filioque in the UGCC for Visnyk where he discusses the use of "istynno" in place of "I Syna" and I used to have a copy and may still do.
If you are willing to pay me a visit to do some spade work in my disorganized files to locate that article, you are welcome. And I promise not to even think of asking you to remove your paper bag from your head!
We know from the life of St Josaphat that he was not against the use of civil fines in the spreading of the Unia - this is presented in subtle form in the book on St Josaphat published by the Basilians. People under the EC Metropolitan of Kyiv had to make their confession to an EC priest and had to obtain a certificate that they did so (in effect, ensuring they were EC's and not Orthodox). Without that certificate or paper, they were liable to civil fines. That was standard practice in those days.
In addition, he did go directly to the Orthodox to openly debate with them in efforts aimed at getting them to come under Rome. He did this when he went to the Kyivan Caves Lavra and tried to convince the Orthodox monks there to become Catholic on the basis of their own liturgical books where references to St Peter and his position among the Apostles are found. There was lots of agressive proselytising, as you know.
The relics of St Josaphat were moved around in the early years following his Beatification - as were those of other Basilian martyrs, especially those murdered at the order of Tsar Peter I.
This was discussed in the History of the Church in Ukraine.
If you feel I did not read this anywhere but am making it up, that is your prerogative.
Episodes from the life of St Athanasius of Brest show why he reacted the way he did to the Unia - that was when he saw gendarmes try to impose the Unia in the villages etc.
This provoked him to go directly to the Polish Sejm and distribute copies of the miraculous Icon of the Kupyatytska Theotokos to the parliamentarians there assembled and warn them of God's punishment for the use of secular power over church affairs.
There is a life of St Athanasius in Ukrainian and the above are quoted directly from historic sources.
But that's fine, whatever.
If you feel that there was no force of any kind used in the imposition of the Unia, that is your prerogative.
I believe Orthodox historiographers go overboard in commenting on this period of history, but that doesn't mean they are completely wrong either.
St Athanasius himself was tortured for a couple of days to get him to accept the Unia. He refused, was taken to the woods by the gendarmes, forced to dig his own grave and was buried alive after being shot twice. We know that he was buried alive from his fingers when he was later exhumed.
The use of relics of those Basilians killed by Orthodox to promote the Unia in direct "conversion campaigns" is something that I thought was well known. Certainly, Orthodox priests I've spoken to know about them.
As for "it ain't so," history is a matter of interpretation. "Facts" as such don't exist outside frameworks of interpretation, as you know.
If you don't accept this, please believe me when I tell you that I PRAY that none of the above is true. I would rather not believe that even in the 20th century in E. Europe, people like my wife's grandfather had their baptismal certificates changed from "GC" to "RC" so they could get better jobs.
I'd rather not believe that such things could happen. . .