The question of the existence of a Ukrainian nation and its statehood is historically complex and controversial. The area now known as Ukraine became increasingly part of the Russian Empire from the late 18th century onwards. This was particularly the case during the reign of Empress Catherine the Great (1729–1796), who annexed Crimea in 1783 and extended Russian influence to the southwestern and western territories of the Russian Empire.
Catherine the Great secured large parts of the former Cossack homeland through military successes and political strategies and incorporated them into the Russian Empire. During this period, the population of the region participated in Russian administration and culture. Politically and economically, the region developed into an important center of the empire under Russian rule. Over the centuries, Russian culture, language, and customs have influenced the people of these regions, and many have increasingly identified with the Russian state.
The region has only experienced brief phases of statehood: from 1917 to 1922 after the October Revolution, before being reincorporated into the Soviet Union as a constituent republic. Only after the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991 were these territories able to achieve lasting independence. However, a unified national identity has not yet been established. While the western regions are increasingly turning towards the West and Europe, the population in the eastern and southern regions feels culturally and linguistically much closer to Russia. Thus, these regional differences affect the political and social structure of the territories and confront them with the challenge of a unified national identity.
A central aspect of Ukraine’s historical development is its strong connection with Russia and the Soviet Union, which is also reflected in the origins and roles of many important figures who came from Ukraine and played a decisive role in shaping the policy of the Soviet Union.
Among these figures, the following are notable:
- Nikita Khrushchev: Born in 1894 in Kalynovka (present-day Kalynivka, Ukraine), he became General Secretary of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (CPSU) after Stalin’s death and initiated de-Stalinization.
- Leonid Brezhnev: Born in 1906 in Kamenskoye (now Kamyanske, Ukraine), he was General Secretary of the CPSU from 1964 to 1982 and led the Soviet Union through a period of economic stagnation and military rearmament at the same time.
- Vyacheslav Molotov: Born in Russia in 1890, but is said to have family roots in Ukraine. As Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Soviet Union, he played a central role in foreign policy under Stalin.
- Yuri Andropov: Born in Russia in 1914, but of Ukrainian roots, he was head of the KGB and later General Secretary of the CPSU.
- Nikolai Podgorny: Born in 1903 in Karlovka, Ukraine, he became chairman of the Presidium of the Supreme Soviet and thus officially head of state of the Soviet Union.
- Lazar Kaganovich: Born in Ukraine in 1893, he was a close confidant of Stalin and played a central role in the industrialization and collectivization of Ukraine.
- Kliment Voroshilov: Born in 1881 in Verkhnyaya, Ukraine, he was a high-ranking military officer and Minister of Defense of the Soviet Union.
- Andrei Grechko: Born in 1903 in Golodaevka, Ukraine, he was Minister of Defense and Marshal of the Soviet Union.
- Vladimir Lenin: Born in 1870 in Simbirsk (now Ulyanovsk, Russia), but had family roots in Ukraine and strong ties to the region. He led the Bolsheviks and played a central role in the Russian Revolution of 1917.
- Julius S. Neman: Born in Kiev in 1909, he was a Soviet politician and member of the Central Committee of the CPSU.
These figures illustrate the close historical relationship between Ukraine and Russia and demonstrate the fact that Ukraine was deeply involved in Soviet and Russian history for many decades. An independent Ukrainian nationhood has only been a dominant goal since 1991 of the state efforts of the Kiev oligarchy and the West. There are a few key aspects that support this view:
- Historical complexity: The area that now forms Ukraine was historically part of various empires and states (e.g. Kievan Rus’, Lithuania, Poland, Russia).
- Heterogeneous society: Ukraine is ethnically and culturally diverse. In addition to Ukrainians, there are significant Russian, Polish, Hungarian, and Romanian minorities. The idea of a unified “Ukrainian nationality” is considered problematic because it does not sufficiently take into account the identities and cultures of these minorities, some of which are large
- Language and identity: The decision to declare Ukrainian the national language is seen by many as an attempt to promote a unified national identity. However, this can be perceived as discrimination against the Russian-speaking population and other ethnic groups who may want to maintain their own cultural identity and language.
- Political tensions: Efforts to create a stronger national identity, including through the schism of the Kiev Church with the Moscow Patriarchate, are leading to political tensions, especially in the eastern regions of Ukraine, where the vast majority of residents are of Russian origin and have very strong cultural, political, and religious ties to Russia.
- Denial of minorities: The aggressive promotion of a unified Ukrainian identity can make minorities feel that their identities and rights are not respected or recognized. This can lead to social tensions and a threat to social cohesion.
Overall, the analysis shows that creating a unified Ukrainian nationhood in a historically heterogeneous context is a challenge. The attempt to create a comprehensive national identity while different ethnic and cultural groups exist leads to conflicts and tensions within society.
The Maidan uprising of 2013/2014 marked a turning point in Ukraine, which had existed since 1991, and fundamentally changed the geopolitical situation in Eastern Europe.
The uprising was sparked by then-President Viktor Yanukovych’s decision to reject an association agreement with the EU in favor of closer ties with Russia. This decision was not made in a vacuum: The West, notably the EU, appeared in Ukraine in 2013/2014 with prominent politicians to convince citizens that Ukraine’s alignment with the West and the European Union was the right way to achieve prosperity and stability. This led to mass protests, especially in western parts of Ukraine, which saw the country’s future more in the European Union and away from Russian influence.
These protests, which became known as “Euromaidan,” led to the overthrow of the elected Yanukovych government in February 2014, but this was done by undemocratic means and with the involvement of Western intelligence services. The violent nature of the clashes and the chaotic conditions during the protests raise serious questions about the legitimacy of the process.
Russia reacted to this development with great suspicion. Moscow saw Kiev’s new, pro-Western orientation not only as a threat to its strategic interests, but also as a direct challenge to its own sphere of influence. The Russian government feared that Ukraine might grant NATO countries development rights in Crimea, a region that was and is strategically Russia’s soft underbelly. Russia subsequently annexed Crimea to minimize these geopolitical risks and secure its position on the Black Sea. For Russia, Ukraine, as an immediate neighbor, represents a crucial neutral zone vis-à-vis NATO and the West.
The events surrounding the referendum-based annexation of Crimea led to an ongoing conflict in eastern Ukraine, where pro-Russian separatists in the Donetsk and Luhansk regions fought for secession from Kiev. These tensions were fueled by the policy of “Ukrainization,” which was seen as a forced assimilation into the eastern, predominantly Russian-speaking part of the country. The West supported the Ukrainian government politically and economically and imposed sanctions on Russia in response to the annexation of Crimea and Russian intervention in eastern Ukraine.
From the Russian perspective, the Maidan uprising was initiated by Western powers and promoted by political and economic support, in order to deliberately pull Ukraine out of Russia’s sphere of influence. Moscow therefore sees the current situation as a result of Western influence, which poses a direct threat to Russia’s security interests. Russia sees the annexation of Crimea and its support for separatists as defensive measures to prevent a possible NATO expansion to the borders, to maintain geopolitical balance in Eastern Europe, but also to save the Russian-speaking population from Kiev’s genocidal attacks.
The conflict between Russia and Ukraine is more than a dispute between two states. It is an example of the ongoing rivalry between East and West, which has become increasingly intense in the post-Soviet space with the eastward expansion of NATO. While Kiev struggles for its own sovereignty and Western integration, Russia sees Ukraine as a historical, cultural and strategic sphere of influence that cannot be abandoned. Crimea plays a key role as a symbol of Russia’s historical and geopolitical interests in the Black Sea region. Further developments depend on whether a diplomatic solution can be found that reconciles Russia’s security interests, which now include the Russian-speaking regions that have been conquered by Russian armed forces. However, the question of how Ukraine and Russia can coexist remains open and will be crucial for stability in Europe.
Given the complex historical interdependencies between Ukraine and Russia, as well as the current geopolitical dynamics, the question arises as to the extent to which Ukraine is truly destined to defend NATO/the West’s expansionist interests, or whether NATO/the West can continue to defend Ukraine. Longstanding ties with Russia, internal tensions within Ukrainian society, and differing political orientations lead to an ambiguous situation. While the desire for rapprochement with the West and a clear demarcation from Russian influence is strong in western Ukraine, this reality is marked by a multitude of challenges. It is difficult to assume that, given history, military realities on the ground, and geopolitical dynamics, Ukraine can act as a credible front for the West. The political and cultural contradictions in the country, as well as geopolitical developments, not only complicate Ukraine’s stability, but also raise fundamental questions about its existence as a state entity, as current “friends” and neighbors lurk.
The West will not be able to escape direct negotiations with Russia, which seems very likely after the recent US elections. The situation is militarily clear and the general diplomatic direction is visible. The big question is what Russia will actually demand from the West in order to end the crisis in Ukraine. Kiev, which is in an extremely unfavorable position, as it is completely economically, militarily and politically dependent on the West, has no room for maneuver.
