Ukraine's politics of memory

Memory Studies, 2017

Reporting from the events of the so-called ‘Euro-revolution’ in Ukraine 2013–2014, the Western media were prompt to point out the excessive use of national symbols, including those connected with the memory of the Ukrainian nationalist organizations ‘OUN’ and ‘UPA’, which for some periods of time had cooperated with Nazi Germany and were involved in the killing of civilians. By using a postcolonial perspective, the article aims to explain this phenomenon, as well as a number of other elements of the politics of memory in contemporary Ukraine, such as the so-called ‘Decommunization Laws’ adopted in 2015. Special attention is paid to Frantz Fanon’s idea of ‘anticolonial nationalism’ and Homi Bhabha’s idea of hybridity and their realization in Ukraine.

In Ukraine, having arrived at a critical stage of its history, three areas can be highlighted at the level of legislation during the struggle for the way forward since the end of 2013: the language issue, the constitutional process, and the efforts to eliminate the Soviet legacy. The subject of our analysis is the four laws belonging to the 2015 legislative package on decommunization, with an outlook to the broader context, as well. The four laws in question decide about who are heroes and who are enemies in history; what Ukraine's relationship is with World War II, as well as with the Communist and Nazi regimes. The laws point out firmly and excluding any further debate the primacy of the country's independence over all else, and the protection of the ideal of independence by any means concerning both the past and the present. The laws prescribe impeachment as a sanction for denying their contents. This story – hot memory influenced by politics – will be summarized for the period of 2015–2016.

The year 2014 brought great social and cultural disruptions to Ukraine. Euromaidan, the annexation of Crimea, and war in the Donbas led to significant social and political changes, with crucial transformations in Ukrainian historical memory playing an important role in them. Public appeals to history accompanied most political processes in 2014 and were always used for self-legitimization by both sides of the conflict. Changes in attitude towards the Soviet cultural and historical legacy and the formation of a new memory about Euromaidan (“the invention of tradition”) might be considered as a major shift in this field. The aim of this article is to observe and analyze major trends of the politics of memory in Ukraine in 2014 and early 2015.

Central European Papers, 2017

In Ukraine, having arrived at a critical stage of its history, three areas can be highlighted at the level of legislation during the struggle for the way forward since the end of 2013: the language issue, the constitutional process, and the efforts to eliminate the Soviet legacy. The subject of our analysis is the four laws belonging to the 2015 legislative package on decommunization, with an outlook to the broader context, as well. The four laws in question decide about who are heroes and who are enemies in history; what Ukraine's relationship is with World War II, as well as with the Communist and Nazi regimes. The laws point out fi rmly and excluding any further debate the primacy of the country's independence over all else, and the protection of the ideal of independence by any means concerning both the past and the present. The laws prescribe impeachment as a sanction for denying their contents. This story-hot memory infl uenced by politics-will be summarized for the period of 2015-2016.

The Journal of International Relations, Peace Studies, and The Journal of International Relations, Peace Studies, and Development, 2023

History is the basis of our identity, but it sometimes represents a trap. As well explained by Keith Lowe, monuments are representative of our values, and every society deludes itself that its values will be everlasting. However, in a world changing at an unprecedented pace while we move on, urban furnishment such as monuments or streets' names remain frozen in time. Statues and toponyms that were erected and chosen a long time ago may no longer be representative of the values we now treasure. While Russia's aggression is still raging, a lot has been written on the potential implications of the war in Ukraine in several fields such as global economy, energy and food security. Still, at a time in which the relationship between memory and politics is coming to the fore in the field of IR, an in-depth study of the consequences of the war on Ukraine's politics of memory appears to be virtually essential. To close this gap, this paper aims at providing an overview of how the war has influenced Ukraine's politics of memory, especially by focusing on urban spaces such as monuments and topography. Drawing from the theoretical background on collective memory, first, the concepts of "memory" and "place" will be investigated by specifically looking at memory sites and building on Langenbacher and Yossi's idea of "infrastructure of memory". Second, we analyze the changing environment triggered by Russia's aggression and actions such as the removal of Catherine the Great's monument in Odesa or the renaming of the former Victory Square in Kyiv. Russia's war on Ukraine has in fact accelerated a process of decolonization of memory which had begun with the post-Communist transition. Ukraine is now determined to revive its national identity which has long been subjugated. Third, we draw conclusions by reflecting on which turn Ukraine's memory politics may take by analyzing hints provided by high-profile officials such as Zelensky or Klitschko. For instance, a reinterpretation of periods such as the Cossack Hetmanate, Kievan Rus' and Ukraine People's Republic or episodes linked to the Ukrainian Insurgent Army may be implemented with the emergence of new monuments or street names.

Russia’s War in Ukraine: Implications for the Politics of History in Central and Eastern Europe, 2023

Russia launched against Ukraine not only a conventional war but also a war in the sphere of historical memory. Russian historical politics threatens the existence of the Ukrainian people, denies the viability of their state, and asserts that Ukrainian history is inseparable from the history of Russia. Ukraine is forced to defend its historical memory, which has become an object of strict control by the state. This control includes legislative regulation of history, promotion of heroism, utilisation of past tragedies and traumas, and efforts to destroy everything related to the memory of the adversary, such as monuments, toponyms, and literature. The politics of memory of Ukraine can be summarised by the slogan “Get away from Moscow!”, which was used by the writer Mykola Khvylovy in literary discussion in the 1920s. The target of such politics is the establishment of a unified vision of the past; the destruction of all historical and cultural ties with Russia, denial and prohibition (potentially even leading to criminal liability) of Russian and Soviet historical narratives; and mental mobilisation of all Ukrainians around the anti-colonial, anti-communist, conservative, nationalist historical narrative, linked to the discourse of the “thousand-year” national liberation struggle against the “eternal” enemy – Russia.

Nationalist Memory Narratives and the Politics of History in Ukraine since the 1990s, 2023

This essay focuses on analyzing the history of the evolution of the nationalist memory narrative in recent memory politics in Ukraine. It observes the political rehabilitation of the radical nationalist movement and its leaders and organizations, followed by public recognition and glorification, and the evolution of this memory narrative since the beginning of the 1990s from local memory to the centerpiece of the state politics of memory. This article examines the memorialization and commemoration of the nationalist movement at regional and national levels (sites of memory, memorial dates, renaming of topographical objects, movies, TV series, etc.), policies aimed at the promotion of the nationalist historical myth, political controversies, roles of major actors, public debates on these issues, societal responses, and international disputes.

Acta Poloniae Historica, 2024

The article discusses the transformation of Ukraine from a peripheral colony to a European nation-state. It examines changes in the interpretation of Ukrainian-Russian relations in historiography, public perceptions, and museum exhibitions related to the ongoing war. It demonstrates that since 24 February 2022, Ukraine's politics of memory has exclusively followed a continuously expanding anti-colonial perspective. The article highlights a shift in Ukrainian society's view of its past, with growing interest in the country's history and a move away from the Soviet perspective. Museums are crucial in shaping these narrative changes and fostering Ukrainian national identity. The article also explores societal transformations since 1991, showing an increased identifi cation with the state and a gradual distancing from Russia. This is accompanied by a westward turn in geopolitical orientation and a desire to join the European Union. The National Museum of History of Ukraine in the Second World War in Kyiv serves as an example of these processes, refl ecting a nuanced portrayal of the war and of its human dimension. The museum's commitment can be seen as a pillar of a nation-state building project, with symbolic identifi cation shifting from the East to the West, towards the EU and NATO.

Towards Liberal Memory Politics? Discussing Recent Changes at Ukraine's Memory Institute, 2020

On 11 December 2019, Ukraine’s Cabinet of Ministers appointed Anton Drobovych to head the Ukrainian Institute of National Remembrance (UINP). This latest political appointment possibly marks a major change in Ukrainian memory politics since the Euromaidan protests in 2014. Founded in 2006 by the government of then president Viktor Yushchenko as an agency for historical research and education, the UINP turned into an active memory agent after the Euromaidan protests. As I will briefly discuss in this article, the institution has ever since been deeply embroiled in the country’s efforts to deal with the legacies of the repressive Soviet past. Under its previous head, historian Volodymyr Viatrovych (2014-2019), it successfully pushed for the ‘de-communization’ of the public space and a reform of archival regulations. Yet, the UINP also often received negative media attention for its memory politics. These mostly concerned what was perceived by many in Ukraine and abroad to be a rather condescending approach to some episodes of recent history, in particular regarding the actions of Ukrainian nationalists during the German occupation of Soviet Ukraine’s western territories during the Second World War. Against the backdrop of Ukraine’s post-Euromaidan memory politics, this article will discuss the recent change of UINP leadership and ask what it might mean for the future of state-sanctioned ‘policies of history’.

Memory Crash. Politics of History in and around Ukraine, 1980s - 2010s, 2022

This account of historical politics in Ukraine, framed in a broader European context, shows how social, political, and cultural groups have used and misused the past from the final years of the Soviet Union to 2020. Georgiy Kasianov details practices relating to history and memory by a variety of actors, including state institutions, non-governmental organizations, political parties, historians, and local governments. He identifies the main political purposes of these practices in the construction of nation and identity, struggles for power, warfare, and international relations. Kasianov considers the Ukrainian case in the context of a global increase in the politics of history and memory, with particular emphasis on a distinctive East-European variety. He pays special attention to the use and abuse of history in relations between Ukraine, Russia, and Poland.