This can be a preprint extract from Ukraine’s Outpost: Dnipropetrovsk and the Russian-Ukrainian Battle, edited by Taras Kuzio, Sergei I. Zhuk And Paul D’Anieri. A free model of the e book is obtainable from E-Worldwide Relations
The collapse of USSR and emergence from Communist ideology in Ukraine provoked the method of eliminating Soviet symbols. This course of had a special tempo and leads to totally different areas. The Euromaidan Revolution and Russian-Ukrainian warfare gave new actuality to this course of as a result of it got here to imply the hole in values related to the aggressor and its supporters in Ukraine. This new wave of decommunisation additionally provoked totally different responses in several areas of Ukraine. Typically, there are extra supporters within the West and fewer within the East.
Dnipro and Kharkiv are cities which have a lot in widespread, but additionally some notable variations. Within the Ukrainian media and public discourse, Dnipro, in contrast to Kharkiv, is often described as a bastion of civic nationalism. Nevertheless, with only a few exceptions (Buckholz 2019 Gentile 2020, Nitsova 2021), they haven’t been topic to express comparability within the scholarly literature. Decommunisation in each cities didn’t have mass assist. It may be assumed that inhabitants of the cities whose peak of growth is perceived to be in Soviet time ought to assess the Soviet period positively and may have pro-Soviet/pro-Russian and anti-Western geopolitical orientations, and this must be a predictor for his or her attitudes in the direction of decommunisation. This chapter exams this notion empirically.
We begin with transient rationalization of what decommunisation is and how one can clarify the distinction in attitudes in the direction of decommunisation through id and geopolitical preferences in Ukraine. Then we are going to examine Dnipro and Kharkiv and can present and clarify similarities and variations in evaluation of decommunisation by inhabitants of those cities primarily based on a survey undertaken in 2018.
Decommunisation is the method of eradicating Soviet symbols from public areas. This course of started after the disintegration of the USSR however accelerated considerably with the implementation of the decommunisation legal guidelines adopted in April 2015. In response to one of many legal guidelines, the utilization and propaganda of symbols of communist and national-socialist (Nazi) totalitarian regimes is prohibited. Thus, communist monuments must be eliminated, and public locations named after communist-related themes must be renamed. In 1991 Ukraine inherited greater than 8,200 objects of Soviet monumental artwork (Oleksandra Hayday 2018, 47) and roughly 5,500 monuments to Lenin (Serhii Hromenko 2019), a minimum of about 3,750 of which had been dismantled earlier than the ‘legal guidelines of decommunisation’ have been adopted (Hayday 2018, 164). In response to Anton Drobovych, the Head of Ukrainian institute of Nationwide Remembrance (UINP), greater than 51,000 toponyms have been renamed, together with about 2,500 monuments within the final 5 years.
From the very starting ‘decommunisation legal guidelines’ turned a goal of criticism. The principle argument in opposition to the legal guidelines was that they politicise historical past, which results in the prevention of educational examine and debates by imposing sure assessments of historic individuals and occasions in addition to discrimination of individuals’s political opinions, deepening social divisions and even prompting violence (Shevel 2016; Zhurzhenko 2017; Portnov 2015; Yavorskyy 2015).
Regardless of the political will which was embodied within the legal guidelines, attitudes to the decommunisation range considerably throughout totally different social teams and areas in Ukraine. Predictably, public opinion pays extra consideration to renaming of toponyms and elimination of monuments than educational freedom.
In response to the Ranking Sociological Group in November 2016, 35 per cent of Ukrainians supported toponyms’ renaming and 57 per cent have been in opposition to. The most recent analysis on the time of writing (April 2020) by the Democratic Initiatives Basis (DIF) reveals that 32 per cent approve the ban on symbols and 30 per cent approve renaming toponyms whereas these opposed are 34 per cent and 44 per cent, respectively. Approval is increased in Ukraine’s Western and Central areas (as much as 44 per cent) and is decrease in Southern and Japanese areas (all the way down to 22 per cent) and is increased amongst youthful individuals and decrease for older.
How Do We Clarify Attitudes In the direction of Decommunisation?
The principle logic of the reason is that individuals assist historic, political, and geopolitical discourses as a result of profitable makes an attempt to impose them. ‘Soviet’ discourse has been imposed for a few years, which is why older and Russian talking individuals (that are the bulk in Ukraine’s East and South) assist Soviet names and symbols greater than youthful and Ukrainian talking individuals.
Utilizing sociological language, this implies symbolic battle for making a sure worldview dominant — the one in keeping with which the place of a sure group is privileged (Bourdieu 1990). Psychologically it signifies that this place should present constructive vanity, and that any makes an attempt to query such an interpretation meet a minimum of disapproval (Musiyezdov 2016b). That’s the reason attitudes in the direction of decommunisation can’t be lowered to political preferences solely however impacts identities.
The principle downside is the query of what id is and how one can measure it? Regardless of some variations in disciplinary interpretations, typically we use this class to mark one thing that’s on the core of individuals’s self-understanding. Id is a notion of ‘who am I’ and id is one thing that may clarify individuals’s behaviour. However we should keep in mind that id is our instrument, which will be substituted by ideas comparable to ‘values’, ‘pursuits’, and ‘wants’ (Musiyezdov 2016a).
What Is Id?
The idea of id is utilized in totally different disciplines the place it typically signifies that an object is identical as another object or the identical as this object. Within the first case it’s referring to a classification and within the second case to the ‘interior essence’ of the thing. Many philosophers have tried to interpret id utilizing each meanings. As a tutorial idea, id has arisen as a result of S. Freud and has been growing in psychology the place it means the topic’s (psychological) results of (normally unconscious) identification with one other topic, a gaggle, or a sample.
Sociology emphasises that id is socially decided; society affords and imposes positions to establish with and makes individuals conform. Fashionable theories (see Baumeister 1986; Giddens 1991, Castells 1997; Baumann 2001) discover the event of id via the event of society and normally agree that, these days, id is the results of private selection in altering social circumstances.
For instance, in keeping with Anthony Giddens (1984) id and self-identity are cultural phenomena in trendy society which come up and carry out within the each day lifetime of a selected particular person. Widespread id is usually an unconscious confidence of people belonging to a selected crew, widespread emotions and concepts mirrored in consciousness. Utilisation of the idea of id signifies that researchers assume that individuals behave primarily based on their notion about who they’re. Researchers search to discover these perceptions to have the ability to make predictions about future behaviour or a minimum of interpret social dependencies.
In sociology, the measurement of id is the reply to the query, ‘who am I’ given by way of social teams. Because of this societies provide individuals units of social teams, and folks should really feel sturdy connections with one or a few of them.
An essential be aware must be made about teams with which persons are requested to establish. In sociology one of many fundamental questions is about what teams actually exist and what does it imply for the group to exist? This query is extremely debatable, and the reply will be given by taking particular circumstances under consideration. The existence of a gaggle is extremely depending on its visibility in collective actions in addition to in a prevalent worldview (Kachanov and Shmatko 1996) which is why symbolic battle is so essential and why units and buildings of teams are extremely changeable. Because of this speaking about identities interesting to teams aren’t dependable sufficient indicators. When asking about self-description, researchers provide totally different sorts of individuals; and they’re conscious that these sorts might or couldn’t be teams. This strategy allows clarification about totally different dimensions of solidarity.
Geopolitical Orientations and Identities in Ukraine
In modern Ukraine one of many essential dimensions is ‘geopolitical’. Through the use of the idea of ‘geopolitical id’ we don’t confine sure teams within the sense of ‘groupism’ (Brubaker, 2002). We emphasise that being a supporter of sure geopolitical preferences signifies that 1) that is essential for individuals and is linked to different essential issues like values, visions of social justice, and pursuits and a couple of) it will probably predict their attitudes and behavior in the direction of different processes and occasions, in the direction of decommunisation. Geopolitical preferences are demonstrated in Determine 7.1.
As we will see, the principle adjustments in geopolitical attitudes came about in 2012–2014 through the Euromaidan Revolution and Russian-Ukrainian warfare: individuals started to evaluate the thought of Ukraine’s accession to the union of Russia and Belarus extra negatively and the thought of Ukraine’s accession to NATO extra positively (in each circumstances elements of supporters and opponents have modified roughly two occasions). Additionally, we will see corresponding adjustments in identities in Determine 7.1 (Vorona and Shulha 2018, 465) the place the most important adjustments are native (regional), ‘Soviet’ and particularly civic identities. These adjustments are a product of stepping again from ‘Soviet’ (as an embodiment of dignity neglect and Russian politics in the direction of Ukraine) and unity of Ukrainians within the face of a standard menace.
One other predictable result’s that geopolitical attitudes stay totally different in Ukrainian areas. In June 2019, becoming a member of to the European Union is supported by 85 per cent of Ukrainians within the West and 34 per cent within the East of Ukraine, becoming a member of NATO – 80 per cent and 29 per cent respectively (Desk 7.1).
Clearly, it signifies that the place of the town on the map of Ukraine displays these regional variations. Inhabitants of the Central Ukrainian area of Dnipro ought to have been extra in favour of decommunisation than the Japanese Ukrainian area of Kharkiv. As we are going to see, most people in these two cities don’t assist decommunisation however the stage of opposition is increased in Kharkiv than in Dnipro. What can clarify these variations? Is that this a regional issue solely? Answering this query will deliver deeper understanding of decommnunisation processes in Ukraine typically. That is the principle intention of this paper.
Dnipro and Kharkiv: Similarities and Variations
Scholarly literature has hardly ever in contrast Dnipropetrovsk and Dnipro and Kharkiv. Quentin Buckholz (2019) argues that the success or failure of separatist actions throughout Japanese Ukraine (particularly in Kharkiv and Dnipro) is finest understood as regards to the preferences and actions of native political and financial elites. Michael Gentile (2020) compares these cities within the dimensions of disinformation and nationalism however not the attitudes in the direction of decommunisation. Silviya Nitsova (2021) analyses variations between these cities on the one hand and Donetsk and Luhansk however from the viewpoint of rationalization of variations of their destiny in 2014 and since. This chapter contributes to the dialogue of decommunisation by evaluating these two cities utilizing a survey undertaken in 2018.
What do these cities have in widespread and what are the essential variations between them? Each are massive, Russian-speaking, extremely industrialised with a developed high-technology sector in Soviet occasions. Furthermore, each turned essential centres of resistance through the Russo-Ukrainian warfare.
The town of Dnipro is the fourth largest metropolis in Ukraine. It’s located within the south-east of Ukraine on the Dnipro River. The town was formally established in 1776 as Yekaterinoslav and have become the commercial centre at first of 20th century (Portnova 2012). From the Nineteen Fifties the town Dnipropetrovsk turned a big centre of science and expertise after the opening of the Pivdenmash (Yuzhmash) Machine-Constructing Plant and Experimental Design Bureau OKB-586 and OKB Yuzhnoye which designed and produced area and navy manufacturing (particularly – rockets). In 2019 the inhabitants of the town was about 998,000 individuals with an ethnic composition (2001 census) of 72.55 per cent Ukrainians, 23.51 per cent Russians, and 0.98 per cent Jews.
The town of Kharkiv is the second largest metropolis in Ukraine located within the Japanese a part of the nation. The town was formally established in 1654. Like Dnipro it reworked into an industrial centre at the start of 20th century (Chornyy 2007). Because the Thirties, many analysis and growth establishments have been opened, and after the Nineteen Fifties Kharkiv turned one of many largest educational centres within the USSR. Crops such because the Kharkiv Tractor Plant, ‘Turboatom’ (generators), Malyshev Manufacturing facility (navy equipment), Kharkiv Plane Manufacturing Firm, Experimental Design Bureau’s (OKB-692, KB Electropryladobuduvannya, NVO Electroprylad (area and rocket expertise)) and different excessive expertise business vegetation have been located within the metropolis. In 2020 the inhabitants of the town was about 1,443,000 with an ethnic composition (2001 census) of 60.99 per cent Ukrainians, 34.25 per cent Russians, and 0.77 per cent Jews. 
Rivalry between Kharkiv and Dnipro after all existed. For each cities the height of growth was perceived to be between the Sixties and Nineteen Eighties. Reminiscence of Kharkiv as ‘The First Capital’ not solely referred to 1918–1934, when Kharkiv was the capital of Soviet Ukraine, but additionally emphasised its financial, industrial, and educational growth and potential (Musiyezdov 2016b). In 1959–1987, Dnipropetrovsk was a closed metropolis for overseas residents and had further restrictions as a result of existence of area and navy business and analysis; the constructive aspect to this was it gave the inhabitants increased requirements of dwelling that was perceived as an elite privilege standing (Portnova 2017; Zhuk 2010). These circumstances led to the state of affairs when residents of each Kharkiv and Dnipropetrovsk appeared down at different cities, particularly working-class Donetsk.
Traditionally Kharkiv and Dnipropetrovsk elites performed noticeable function in Ukrainian politics. Thus Petro Shelest (from Kharkiv) who was the First Secretary of the Communist Social gathering of Ukraine in 1963–1972 was changed by Volodymyr Shcherbytskyy (from Dnipropetrovsk) who occupied this put up till 1989. The Head of USSR Leonid Brezhnev (1964–1982) was from Dnipropetrovsk in addition to the second President of Ukraine Leonid Kuchma (1994–2004).
Andriy Portnov tells the Soviet Dnipropetrovsk joke about three intervals of Russian historical past: ‘pre-Petrine, Petrine, and Dnipro-petrine (dopetrovski – petrovski – dnipropetrovski, with the primary two names referring to the primary Russian emperor, Peter the Nice)’ (Portnov 2015b, 63). Dnipropetrovsk inhabitants and elites noticed their metropolis as ‘neither the primary nor the second’ and didn’t see Kyiv as their capital. A fairly related state of affairs was in Kharkiv, which used to match itself with Moscow and Leningrad and never with Kyiv (Musiyezdov 2016b).
There have been few leaders from Kharkiv who had some influence on Ukrainian politics (Vladimir Grynyov, Yevgenii Kushnaryov, Boris Lozhkin). However names of these from Dnipropetrovsk are significantly better recognized: Pavlo Lazarenko, Yulia Tymoshenko, Valery Pustovoytenko, Viktor Pinchuk, Ihor Kolomoyskyy (Denis Kazanskyy 2015). Each Kharkiv and Dnipropetrovsk elites have been defeated within the battle for Ukrainian energy by the Donetsk elite in the long run of 2000s.
In 2014, Kharkiv and Dnipropetrovsk performed essential roles through the so-called ‘Russian spring’. Andrii Portnov (2016), for instance, expresses the favored concept that related cities within the East of Ukraine skilled totally different fates as a result of unintended circumstances. Donetsk, Luhansk, Dnipropetrovsk and Kharkiv are comparatively massive, Russian-speaking, oblasts. In his opinion the ‘Russian spring’ failed within the latter two cities due to a selected constellation of native elites’ pursuits and totally different impacts of insurance policies by the central authorities. It’s troublesome to disagree with this, however further arguments may very well be added. Cities within the Donbas are characterised by the predominance of mining and metallurgy and, consequently, a homogeneous composition of the inhabitants. This contrasts with a diversified vary of industries, together with high-tech that are in Kharkiv and Dnipropetrovsk resulting in a extra numerous inhabitants which reduces mobilization in the direction of for univocal assist of any political drive or opinion. Solely within the Donbas was a monolithic occasion of energy (Social gathering of Areas) created; in Kharkiv and Dnipropetrovsk native elites by no means united. From the viewpoint of countering makes an attempt to make the town a pro-Russian ‘individuals’s republic’ the variety present in Kharkiv, and Dnipropetrovsk was a constructive inhibiting issue (Musiyezdov 2015). In the course of the Russian-Ukrainian warfare each cities turned essential logistical, drugs and navy centres, each accepted massive numbers of IDPs from the Donbas and Kharkiv (for Luhansk) and Dnipropetrovsk (for Donetsk) navy hospitals for wounded troopers.
Common Attitudes In the direction of Decommunisation
How do inhabitants of Kharkiv and Dnipro assess decommunisation? To reply this query, we use the outcomes of surveys carried out in these two cities in 2018.
As we will see from desk 7.4, most people in these two cities don’t assist decommunisation however the stage of opposition is increased in Kharkiv than in Dnipro. What can clarify these variations?
The query about identities has already been mentioned earlier in our chapter. We will examine not solely complete samples from Dnipro and Kharkiv but additionally teams of people that assist decommunisation in each cities (see Desk 7.6). Allow us to discover although that feeling affinity and even belonging to a sure group doesn’t imply an impossibility of feeling affinity or belonging to different teams. That’s the reason some researchers ask to what extent individuals contemplate themselves as consultant of a number of teams (see Musiyezdov 2007). The identical method has been utilized in analysing analysis.
This knowledge gives a number of attention-grabbing observations:
- Self-identification as European is the one id that correlates with a constructive evaluation of decommunisation; in different phrases, the extra individuals really feel they’re European, the extra they assist decommunisation (Spearman coefficient is 0.567 in Kharkiv and 0.370 in Dnipro for the query about streets renaming).
- Whereas self-identification as Russian might replicate the ethnic specifics of those cities, self-identification as European (which is extra well-liked in Dnipro) may be very divisive: 29 per cent answered ‘sure’ or ‘somewhat sure’ on this query in Dnipro whereas 22 per cent gave the identical reply in Kharkiv.
- Feeling European doesn’t correlate (positively or negatively) with different identities.
- Supporters of decommunisation in Dnipro are slightly bit extra Ukrainian than the inhabitants of Dnipro typically (96 per cent vs. 90 per cent respectively).
- Supporters of decommunisation in Kharkiv are slightly bit extra Soviet than supporters of decommunisation in Dnipro (34 per cent vs. 19 per cent respectively).
Did European id exist earlier than the 2014 disaster and was it on the identical stage as now? Desk 7.8 reveals that in each cities nearly all of those that felt European now felt European earlier than (69 per cent in Dnipro and 78 per cent in Kharkiv). However in comparison with them a major a part of the individuals who assist decommunisation now didn’t really feel European earlier than (52 per cent in Dnipro and 61 per cent in Kharkiv). Because of this assist for decommunisation is a response to socio-political occasions somewhat than a results of earlier identification with Europeans.
‘Belonging’ in addition to feeling affinity to a sure group might have totally different meanings. For instance, identification with a rustic will be primarily based on totally different concepts of what a rustic is. Is it a state (political and authorized unity), a ‘Motherland’ (historic unity with some ethnic connotation) or a unity of people that now have one thing in widespread (regardless of why) (Musiyezdov, 2012)? Citizenship and nationality are sometimes confused in Western democracies (for instance, on customs declarations). Subsequently, the clarification of the influence of feeling European on different attitudes should be studied in additional analysis.
Allow us to now transfer on to geopolitical preferences (see Tables 7.8 and seven.9). Right here we will see the next outcomes:
- Supporters of decommunisation are pro-Western.
- Supporters of decommunisation in Kharkiv are much less radical of their opinions than in Dnipro. Whereas the overall settlement or disagreement is identical in these teams in each cities, inhabitants of Kharkiv extra usually selected ‘somewhat agree’ than ‘completely agree’ than inhabitants of Dnipro.
- Folks in Kharkiv are much less pro-European than in Dnipro. 26 per cent in Kharkiv in comparison with 44 per cent in Dnipro agree that Ukraine should defend European values and 32 per cent in Kharkiv in comparison with 42 per cent in Dnipro agree that the affect of Western Europe on the Ukrainian lifestyle is constructive. 55.7 per cent in Kharkiv in comparison with 36.6 per cent in Dnipro don’t see advantages for Ukraine from changing into a member of NATO and the European Union whereas 28.2 per cent in Dnipro in comparison with 11.7 per cent in Kharkiv see such advantages.
- Even pro-decommunisation teams typically don’t deny their closeness to Slavic peoples in each cities with 74 per cent in Kharkiv and 76 per cent in Dnipro agreeing that Ukraine should defend Slavic values.
- 81 per cent in Kharkiv in comparison with 69 per cent in Dnipro agree that Russians and Ukrainians are one individuals. On the one hand this assertion will be handled for instance of these days Russian propaganda that refers to the concept that Ukrainians are synthetic building produced by outer forces to weaken Russia. However however, it appears to replicate the Soviet narrative about druzhba narodiv (individuals’s friendship) the place cultural and ethnic variations shouldn’t play any vital function.
Variations in attitudes in the direction of Slavic values and Russians between the inhabitants of Kharkiv and Dnipro are attention-grabbing, however we should not have good explanations for this. It may be assumed that appeals to ‘Slavic values’ and ‘Slavianism’ in any types displays the thought and Russian narrative that Russians and Ukrainians are very shut nations (if not as Russian President Vladimir Putin at all times says, ‘one individuals’). Maybe it displays the ethnic composition in these cities and/or the existence of long-term border cooperation with Russia in Kharkiv, however this assumption doesn’t appear complete sufficient. Once more, it might be essential to discover what individuals imply by NATO, European Union, Slavic values, Russians, and Ukrainians in future analysis.
We might assume that decommunisation can be supported by those that contemplate the Soviet interval negatively. In Desk 7.10 we will see that this assumption is right with these in favour of decommunisation in each cities viewing the Soviet interval extra negatively than inhabitants within the two cities extra typically. Inhabitants of Dnipro estimate the Soviet interval extra negatively than the inhabitants of Kharkiv among the many inhabitants typically and people in favour of decommunisation teams.
Explanations of the variations between Dnipro and Kharkiv
As we will see, common opinions about decommunisation, geopolitical orientations, identities, and evaluation of Soviet historical past have fairly related traits in Dnipro and Kharkiv. However regardless of this closeness there are essential variations between two cities: Dnipro seems to be rather more pro-Western/pro-European and pro-Ukrainian in addition to much less pro-Soviet than Kharkiv. This isn’t a brand new phenomenon: the analysis ‘The views and opinions of South-Japanese areas residents of Ukraine: April 2014’ performed by the Kyiv Worldwide Institute of Sociology have found these variations. They decisively influence attitudes in the direction of decommunisation.
Folks in each cities are conscious of their variations (Desk 7.11) with 38 per cent in Dnipro agreeing that their metropolis is extra pro-Ukrainian than Kharkiv (28 per cent disagree) and 40 per cent in Kharkiv agreeing with this assertion (12 per cent disagree). How will we clarify the hole in pro-Ukrainian ‘self-confidence’ amongst Dniprovians versus Kharkovians? There may very well be a minimum of three assumptions.
First, it may be assumed that these variations are partly primarily based on geography as a result of Kharkiv is a border metropolis and has a higher variety of ties with Russia than Dnipro from which it’s troublesome to flee. It refers to financial connections (Buckholz 2019), identities (Zhurzhenko 2015) and susceptibility to Russian propaganda (Stebelsky 2018; Tomazs Piechal 2015). Since 1991, Kharkiv was pressured to match itself with Kyiv, not with Moscow and Leningrad because it used to do earlier than (Musiyezdov 2016b). Comparability with Kyiv was perceived as new and fairly unfair (Kravchenko 2019). And it led to the enforcement of Soviet nostalgia – the reference to the Soviet interval as to one thing like ‘Golden age’ – that has embodied into the parable of ‘The First capital,’ which was the reference to late Soviet period not the 1920–Thirties. Additionally, Kharkiv misplaced its standing because the ‘capital of the East of Ukraine’ with the rise of Donetsk clan within the 2000s which can have elevated frustration and prevented a decline in Soviet nostalgia within the metropolis.
Second, the native historical past and heritage of the Jewish group in Dnipro would possibly matter. In response to the final (2001) census the proportion of Jews is 0.98 per cent (10,503) and 0.77 per cent (11,176) in Dnipro and Kharkiv respectively. In each cities the quantity and proportion of Jews decreased through the Soviet period.
In response to some assets, the Jewish populations of each cities have been nearly equal and lowered from about 8 per cent in 1959 to about 3 per cent in 1989. It may be added that there was a pattern to not exhibiting Jewish origins within the USSR, particularly when just one dad or mum is a Jew. This makes researchers query Soviet census figures in regards to the variety of Jews. A few of them say that the proportion of Jews must be about 10 per cent (Bystriakov 2015). It’s troublesome to show this assertion, however we might agree that the actual figures are bigger than official ones.
We will see the proportions of Jews in Dnipro and Kharkiv have been very related since 1939. However in 1926 the distinction was noticeable; within the 1897 census, there have been 34.77 per cent of Jews in Dnipro and 5.66 per cent in Kharkiv exhibiting a giant distinction between them.
This may be defined by the truth that till 1914–1917 Dnipro (then Yekaterinoslav) was part of the Pale of Settlement – the Western territory of Russia Empire the place Jews have been allowed to settle, however Kharkiv was not (Yannay Spitzer 2012). Because of this Jews in Dnipro might reside and preserve their conventional tradition. Jews in Kharkiv have been so referred to as ‘helpful Jews’ – those that have increased training (normally docs or engineers) or have been profitable entrepreneurs (have certain quantity of capital). So, they need to really feel lesser connection to Jewish conventional tradition dwelling other than conventional Jewish group. After 1914, many Jews fled to Kharkiv. Normally, they have been refugees from First World Battle or fairly poor individuals who sought prosperity exterior conventional communities. This course of elevated at first of Soviet period when many Jews who supported Soviet energy got here to Kharkiv because the capital of Soviet Ukraine. This raised the quantity and proportion of Jews in Kharkiv to ranges akin to these of Dnipropetrovsk. However the connection to Jewish custom was totally different in these cities: fairly sturdy in Dnipropetrovsk and fairly weak in Kharkiv. That’s the reason the Holocaust and Soviet anti-Semitism had higher influence on Jews in Dnipropetrovsk than in Kharkiv and shaped the state of affairs the place Jews in Dnipro ‘maintain no nostalgia for the USSR’ (see the chapter by Ishchenko) whereas Jews in Kharkiv ought to have such a nostalgia.
Third, the function of native elites must be considered. The variety of leaders from Dnipropetrovsk who rose to prominence nationally (Leolid Kuchma, Pavlo Lazarenko, Yulia Tymoshenko, Valery Pustovoytenko) might give the impression that Ukraine ‘belongs to them,’ which means that they’ve their political and financial pursuits tied with Ukraine and inside Ukraine. The Kharkiv authorities, however, have been much less concerned in Ukrainian politics and extra linked with Russia, a minimum of economically. Dnipro elites noticed the occasions of 2013–2014 and the Russo-Ukrainian warfare as a chance to regain their management of Ukraine after years of ‘Donetsk clan’ dominance (Buckholz 2019; Kuzio 2019, Portnov 2015b).
Additionally, the Jewish oligarchs from Dnipro (Viktor Pinchuk, Ihor Kolomoyskyy) are a lot nearer tied to Jewish traditions and to the anti-Soviet perspective of Jews in Dnipro than are Kharkiv’s elites of Jewish ancestry (Gennadii Kernes, Mykhaylo Dobkin). This additionally ought to situation corresponding coverage decisions in these cities, together with on decommunisation.
Some Common Assumptions
A ‘Soviet’ individual wouldn’t be in opposition to the Soviet legacy however in circumstances when most individuals with a Soviet id even have a Ukrainian id, one should ask what precisely it means to be/to really feel Soviet? Solutions on this query may very well be a real predictor of the perspective in the direction of decommunisation. We don’t have correct devices to get this reply to this point, however we attempt to make just a few preliminary strategies.
First, we will assume there are 5 totally different ‘dimensions’ of perceiving Soviet id:
- Political: correspondence to sure political opinions (communist, socialist, left).
- Financial: correspondence to sure financial views (‘honest’ distribution system and the extent of its embodiment within the USSR actuality, particularly).
- Cultural: correspondence to the Russian or Russian-speaking literature.
- Historic: correspondence to the sure interpretation(s) of historical past,
- Biographical: correspondence to the actual fact of the one’s start within the USSR or acknowledgement of habits and attitudes as Soviet.
Maybe it’s attainable so as to add another dimensions; every of them might have totally different interpretations. However all of them are ‘doctrinal’, ‘cognitive’, ‘discursive’ ones which implies they relate to some rational and aware statements whereas in lots of circumstances the emotional component is rather more essential. On this context, the idea of nostalgia appears productive as a result of it covers attitudes in the direction of the previous via the prism of collective reminiscence and private expertise, and is linked to identities, values and interpretations of the current, which all embody an emotional element.
Within the case of Soviet nostalgia, it might be helpful to make use of the excellence on ‘smooth’ and ‘onerous’ nostalgia. ‘Exhausting nostalgia’ is espoused by Russian President Vladimir Putin: ‘The collapse of the USSR was the best geopolitical disaster of the 20th century’. ‘Delicate nostalgia’ is revealed within the settlement with then Socialist Social gathering of Ukraine chief Oleksandr Moroz’s assertion: ‘You don’t have any coronary heart in the event you don’t remorse for the loss the USSR, however you might have no head if you’d like the USSR revived.’ This assertion stems from the late Nineties and was made to mark the distinction between the Socialist Social gathering and the Communist Social gathering. These days ‘smooth nostalgia’ is perhaps current amongst these with Ukrainian and European identities, however ‘onerous nostalgia’ (in all probability) will not be. ‘Delicate nostalgia’ might clarify a few of the somewhat passive opposition to decommunisation (which we will observe) whereas ‘onerous nostalgia’ seemingly motivates anti-decommunisation activists.
This distinction echoes Svetlana Boym’s (2002) distinction between ‘restorative’ and ‘reflective’ nostalgia. For her, ‘restorative’ nostalgia entails the idealisation of the thing of nostalgia, whereas ‘reflective’ nostalgia allows some interpretation of and emotions for the previous and its relation to the current – with out the expectation or want to going again.
Identities and geopolitical orientations do clarify attitudes in the direction of decommunisation. Decommunisation is geared toward eradicating visible Soviet legacies that are interpreted as one thing that stops the event of Ukraine, which is why it may very well be argued that essentially the most linked identities can be Ukrainian and Soviet. However European id has the closest assortment to attitudes in the direction of decommunisation. Additionally, geopolitical orientations play a major function right here as a result of increased assist for pro-Western attitudes interprets into increased assist for decommunisation. We subsequently argue that the idea of values will be as helpful because the idea of id (maybe much more so). Feeling European doesn’t correlate positively or negatively with different identities, and the pro-European mindset is most certainly distinct, presumably being an outgrowth of the Euromaidan Revolution.
Regardless of holding pro-Western/pro-European positions and a unfavorable view of Soviet historical past, supporters of decommunisation don’t deny their Soviet previous utterly; certainly, a lot of them proceed to really feel Soviet, contemplate Russians and Ukrainians to be one individuals and have a tendency to assist Slavic values. However, disapproval of decommunisation may very well be defined by pragmatic causes than by ideological elements.
Variations between Dnipro and Kharkiv are typically fairly vital. Typically, inhabitants of Dnipro assist decommunisation extra, are extra pro-Western/pro-European and extra pro-Ukrainian and are much less pro-Soviet. These variations don’t deny related opinions in each cities, however they do nonetheless matter. It may be assumed that these variations are primarily based on geography and whether or not the town is a border metropolis, which impacts financial ties, identities and susceptibilities to Russian disinformation. Two different elements are the function and native historical past of the Jewish group in Dnipro (see above) and the function of native elites in Ukrainian politics and economic system.
Since identification is extraordinarily delicate to the meanings that are concerned within the processes a radical examine of those meanings must be a part of any analysis into id. This chapter contributes to the examine of decommunisation and identities by offering new floor in evaluating Kharkiv and Dnipro and by pointing to the necessity for additional analysis.
 See Regulation no. 2558 (April 2015)‘On Condemning the Communist and Nationwide Socialist (Nazi) Totalitarian Regimes and Prohibiting the Propagation of their Symbols’, https://zakon.rada.gov.ua/legal guidelines/present/317-19#Textual content
 We thank Anna Olinyk and Taras Kuzio for this data.
 ‘Za roky decommunizatsii v Ukrayini demontuvaly bilsh yak 1300 pamyatnykiv Leninu’ Ukrinform, 16 July 2020. https://www.ukrinform.ua/rubric-society/3064494-za-roki-dekomunizacii-v-ukraini-demontuvali-bils-ak-1300-pamatnikiv-leninu.html
 ‘Perspective towards sure historic figures and decommunisation course of in Ukraine,’ Sociological Group ‘Ranking’, 17 November 2016. http://ratinggroup.ua/en/analysis/ukraine/otnoshenie_k_otdelnym_istoricheskim_lichnostyam_i_processu_dekommunizacii_v_ukraine.html
 ‘The sixth 12 months of decommunisation: the perspective of Ukrainians towards prohibition of symbols of the totalitarian previous,’ Democratic Initiatives Basis, 24 July 2020. https://dif.org.ua/en/article/the-sixth-year-of-decommunisation-the-attitude-of-ukrainians-toward-prohibition-of-symbols-of-the-totalitarian-past
 Within the annual ‘Ukrainian society’ monitoring of public opinion since 1992 by the Institute of Sociology of the Nationwide Academy of Sciences of Ukraine, the query is formulated as ‘Who do you contemplate your self within the first place?’ with the next choices for solutions (Vorona and Shulha 2018, 465).
 ‘Social and political moods of Ukrainians: IRI ballot,’ Sociological group ‘Ranking’, 10 July 2019. http://ratinggroup.ua/en/analysis/ukraine/opros_iri_dinamika_obschestvenno-politicheskih_vzglyadov_v_ukraine_iyun_2019.html
 ‘Chyselnist naiavnoho naselennia m.Dnipra na 1 serpnia 2020 roku,’ Holovne upravlinnya statystyky Dnipropetrovskoi oblasti. http://www.dneprstat.gov.ua/expres/2020/09/21_09_2020/chis-nas-mDnipra.pdf
 ‘Chyselnist naiavnoho naselennya m.Dnipra na 1 serpnya 2020 roku,’ Databank of the State Statistics Service of Ukraine. http://database.ukrcensus.gov.ua/MULT/Database/Census/databasetree_uk.asp
 ‘Chyselnist naselennya (za otsinkoyu) po mistakh oblasnoho znachennya ta rayonakh,’ (shchomisyachna informatsiya). http://kh.ukrstat.gov.ua/chyselnist-naselennia-shchomisiachna-informatsiia
 Databank of State Statistics Service of Ukraine. http://database.ukrcensus.gov.ua/MULT/Database/Census/databasetree_uk.asp
 This viewpoint is predicated on our private observations dwelling in Kharkiv and attending conferences of individuals from Kharkiv and Donetsk.
 This examine is predicated on two pattern surveys performed among the many grownup (18+) inhabitants in Dnipro (n = 1258) and Kharkiv (n =1254) in early and mid-2018, respectively. The surveys have been designed by Michael Gentile and the fieldwork and sampling have been performed on a contractual foundation by the Centre for Social Indicators (CSI), whose subject assets and experience are shared with the reputed Kyiv Worldwide Institute of Sociology (KIIS) polling company. Funding from the Norwegian Analysis Council (NORRUSS venture 287267, ‘Ukrainian Geopolitical Fault-line Cities: City Id, Geopolitics and City Coverage’) supported this work. The information assortment effort was funded by the Division of Sociology and Human Geography on the College of Oslo through a Småforsk grant given to Michael Gentile.
 Individuals who ‘completely assist’ or ‘somewhat assist’ the renaming of streets. The query in regards to the elimination of Lenin monuments has a obscure possibility (‘they need to be moved to a different place’) which may very well be interpreted for or in opposition to ‘decommunisation’ relying on the context.
 Right here and different emphasised variations are 0tatistically vital on the 1%-level.
 ‘The views and opinions of south-eastern areas residents of Ukraine: April 2014,’ Kyiv Worldwide Institute of Sociology, April 2014. http://www.kiis.com.ua/?lang=eng&cat=stories&id=302&y=2014&m=4&web page=1
 Databank of State Statistics Service of Ukraine. http://database.ukrcensus.gov.ua/MULT/Database/Census/databasetree_uk.asp
 ‘Elektronnaya yevreyskaya enciklopediya,’ Dnipro. https://eleven.co.il/diaspora/communities/11444/; Kharkiv. Elektronnaya yevreyskaya enciklopediya. https://eleven.co.il/diaspora/communities/14456/. See additionally Demoscope Weekly. http://www.demoscope.ru/weekly/pril.php
 ‘The First Common Census of the Russian Empire of 1897. Breakdown of inhabitants by mom tongue and districts in 50 Gubernia of European Russia. Yekaterinislav district – the town of Yekaterinislav,’ Demoscope Weekly. http://www.demoscope.ru/weekly/ssp/rus_lan_97_uezd_eng.php?reg=426
 ‘The First Common Census of the Russian Empire of 1897. Breakdown of inhabitants by mom tongue and districts in 50 Gubernia of European Russia. Kharkov district – the town of Kharkov,’ Demoscope Weekly. http://www.demoscope.ru/weekly/ssp/rus_lan_97_uezd_eng.php?reg=1604
 Specifically, the Seventh Lubavitcher Rebbe, Menachem Mendel Schneerson (1902–1994), grew up in Dnipropetrovsk which is why the town was particularly essential for the Hasidic custom. See the chapter by Ishchenko.
 For instance, Gennadii Kernes thought-about himself an Orthodox Christian and his funeral service came about in an Orthodox Church. See ‘U Kharkovi poproschalysya z Kernesom: usi podrobytsi,’ Obozrevatel. https://information.obozrevatel.com/ukr/politics/u-harkovi-proschayutsya-z-kernesom-vsi-podrobitsi-onlajn.htm). Mykhailo Dobkin is a founding father of the Social gathering of Christian Socialists. See ‘Dobkin Mykhaylo Markovych. Vidkrytyi reyiestr natsionalnyh publichnyh diyiachiv Ukrayiny.’ https://pep.org.ua/uk/individual/388.
 ‘Politychna biografiya Oleksandra Moroza,’ Radio Svoboda. https://www.radiosvoboda.org/a/947905.html
 What teams or different patterns are? Why they’re what they’re? How are they interpreted and by whom? What are the similarities and variations between their positions?
Abramov, Roman. (2014). ‘Vremia i prostranstvo nostalgii’. Sotsiologicheskiy Zhurnal, 4: 5–23.
Baumann, Zygmunt (2001) The Individualized Society. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Baumeister, Roy. (1986). Id. Cultural Change and Battle for Self. N. Y., Oxford.
Boiko, Natalia et al., (1998). Pravliacha elita Ukrainy. Analitychna dopovid N10 (Kyiv: Instytut sotsiolohii NAN Ukrayiny).
Bourdieu, Pierre. (1990). In Different Phrases: Essays towards a Reflective Sociology Stanford College Press.
Boym, Svetlana. (2002). The Way forward for Nostalgia. New York: Primary Books.
Brubaker, Rogers. (2002). ‘Ethnicity with out teams,’ European Journal of Sociology / Archives Européennes De Sociologie / Europäisches Archiv Für Soziologie, 43, 2: 163–189.
Bystriakov, Aleksandr (2015). ‘Khronika zhyzni evreiev Yekaterinoslava – Dnepropetrovska’ In: Almanac ‘Yevreiskaya starina,’ 2 (85). http://berkovich-zametki.com/2015/Starina/Nomer2/Bystrjakov1.php
Buckholz, Quentin. (2019). ‘The Canine That Didn’t Bark. Elite Preferences and the Failure of Separatism in Kharkiv and Dnipropetrovsk,’ Issues of Submit-Communism, 66, 3: 151–160.
Castells, Manuel. (1997). The The Energy of Id, The Info Age: Financial system, Society and Tradition, Vol. II Cambridge, MA; Oxford, UK: Blackwell.
Chornyy, Dmytro. (2007). Po livyy bik Dnipra: downside modernizatsii mist Ukrayiny (kinets XIX – pochatok XX st.) Kharkiv: Kharkiv Nationwide College.
Gentile, Michael (2020) ‘Diabolical Solutions: Disinformation and the Curious Scale of Nationalism in Ukrainian Geopolitical Fault-line Cities,’ Geopolitics, DOI: 10.1080/14650045.2020.1830766.
Giddens, Antony. (1991). Modernity and Self-Id. Self and Society within the Late Fashionable Age. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Giddens, Antony. (1984). The Structure of Society. Define of the Principle of Structuration Cambridge: Polity Press.
Hayday, Oleksandra. (2018) Kamyanyy hist. Pamyatnyky Leninu v Tsentralniy Ukrayini. Kyiv, Okay.I.S.
Hromenko, Serhii. (2019) ‘Dekomunizatsiya. Deradyanizatsiya? Dekolonizatsiya!’ Lokalna Istoriya, 11 December. http://localhistory.org.ua/dekomunizatsiya-deradyanizatsiya-dekolonizatsiya-5-rokiv-pereosmyslennya-radyanskoyi-symvoliky/
Kachanov, Yuri and Shmatko, Natalia. (1996). ‘Kak vozmozhna sotsial’naya gruppa? (ok probleme actual’nosti v sotsiologii),’ Sotsiologicheskiye Issledovaniya, 12, 90–105.
Kazanskyy, Denys. (2015). ‘Susidski viyny,’ Ukrayinsky Tyzhden, 11 October 2015. https://tyzhden.ua/Politics/147621
Kravchenko, Volodymyr. (2019). ‘Kharkiv: The Previous Lives On’, The Soviet and Submit-Soviet Evaluation, 46, 3: 324–351.
Kurina, Aksiniia. (2016). ‘Istoryk Georgii Kasianov: Sposoby zdiysnennia dekomunizatsii nagaduiut’ komunistychni praktyky,’ Ukrayinska Pravda. Zhyttya, 7 Might. https://life.pravda.com.ua/society/2016/05/7/211912/
Kuzio, Taras. (2019). Viyna Putina Proty Ukrayiny. Revolutsiya, Natsionalism, I Kriminalitet Kyiv: Dukh i litera.
Marples, David. (2015). ‘Open Letter from Students and Specialists on Ukraine Re. the So-Known as ‘Anti-Communist Regulation,’ Krytyka, April. https://krytyka.com/en/articles/open-letter-scholars-and-experts-ukraine-re-so-called-anti-communist-law
Musiyezdov, Oleksiy. (2007). ‘V poshukah regionalnoi identychnosti (na prykladi doslidzhen studentiv-pershokursnykiv kharkivskyh vnz),’Visnyk Lvivskoho Universytetu. Seriya Sotsiologichna, 1, 11–21.
Musiyezdov, Oleksiy. (2012). ‘Uyavlennia professional krayinu yak osnova hromadyanskoi identychnosti’ In: Arbenina, Vera and Sokurianska, Ludmyla eds. Ukrainske studentstvo u poshukah identychnosti. Kharkiv: Kharkiv Nationwide College, 69–80.
Musiyezdov, Oleksiy. (2015). ‘Multikulturnost goroda v globalnom obschestve: Primer Kharkova,’ In: Metodologiya, teoriya ta praktyka sotsiologichnogo analizu suchasnoho suspilstva: Zbirnyk naukovyh prats. Kharkiv: Kharkiv Nationwide College, 167–173.
Musiyezdov, Oleksiy. (2016a). ‘Identychnosti vs. Tsinnosti: Scho naspravdi poyasnuye Yevromaidan,’ Ukrayina Moderna, 2 March. http://uamoderna.com/blogy/oleksi-musiezdov/identychnosti-vs-cinnosti
Musiyezdov, Oleksiy. (2016b). Miska identicnist u (put up)suchasnomu suspilstvi: ukrayinskyy dosvid. Kharkiv: Kharkiv Nationwide College.
Nitsova, Silviya (2021) ‘Why the Distinction? Donbas, Kharkiv and Dnipropetrovsk After Ukraine’s Euromaidan Revolution,’ Europe-Asia Research, DOI: 10.1080/09668136.2021.1912297.
Piechal, Tomasz. (2015). ‘The Kharkiv oblast: a fragile stability,’ OSW Commentary, 6 September. https://www.osw.waw.pl/en/publikacje/osw-commentary/2015-06-09/kharkiv-oblast-a-fragile-stability
Portnov, Andriy. (2015a). ‘On Decommunisation, Id, and Legislating Historical past, From a Barely Completely different Angle,’ Krytyka, Might. https://krytyka.com/en/options/opinions/decommunisation-identity-and-legislating-history-slightly-different-angle
Portnov, Andriy. (2015b). ‘The Coronary heart of Ukraine’? Dnipropetrovsk and the Ukrainian Revolution’ In: Wilson, Andrew ed. What does Ukraine assume. London: European Council on International Relations, 62–70.
Portnov, Andriy. (2016). ‘How ‘japanese Ukraine’ was misplaced,’ OpenDemocracy, 14 January. https://www.opendemocracy.web/en/odr/how-eastern-ukraine-was-lost/
Portnova, Tetiana. (2012). ‘Evolutsiya miskoho seredovyscha Katerynoslava kintsya XIX – pochatku XX st.,’ Historians.in.ua, 20 February 2012. http://www.historians.in.ua/index.php/en/doslidzhennya/144-tetiana-portnova-evolyutsiya-miskoho-ser
Portnova, Tetiana. (2017). ‘Tema ‘zakrytoho mista v istorii radyanskoho Dniproprtrovska 1950-80-h rokiv,’ Historians.in.ua, 11 December. http://www.historians.in.ua/index.php/en/doslidzhennya/2351-tetyana-portnova-tema-zakritogo-mista-v-istoriji-radyanskogo-dnipropetrovska-1950-80-kh-rokiv
Shevel, Oxana. (2016). ‘Decommunisation in Submit-Euromaidan Ukraine. Regulation and apply,’ PONARS Eurasia Coverage Memos, 411. http://www.ponarseurasia.org/memo/decommunisation-post-euromaidan-ukraine-law-and-practice
Solodko, Pavlo. (2012). ‘Dnipropetrovsk. Yak opovisty istoriyu mista bez istorii,’ Istorychna Pravda, 26 January. https://www.istpravda.com.ua/articles/2012/01/26/70102/
Stebelsky, Ihor. (2018). ‘A story of two areas: geopolitics, identities, narratives, and battle in Kharkiv and the Donbas,’ Eurasian Geography and Economics, 59, 1: 28–50.
Spitzer, Yannay. (2012). ‘A New Map of Jewish Communities within the Russian Empire,’ Yannay Spitzer. Bits and Items of My Work and Pursuits. 22 July. https://yannayspitzer.web/2012/07/22/a-new-map-of-jewish-communities-in-the-russian-empire/
Ukrainian Parliament. (2015).‘Regulation On Condemning the Communist and Nationwide Socialist (Nazi) Totalitarian Regimes and Prohibiting the Propagation of their Symbols.’ https://zakon.rada.gov.ua/legal guidelines/present/317-19#Textual content
Vorona, Valerii and Shulha, Mykola eds. (2018). Ukrayinske suspilstvo: monitorynh sotsiyalnykh zmin, 6 (20). Kyiv: Instytut sotsiolohii NAN Ukrainy.
Yavorskyy, Volodymyr. (2015). ‘Analiz zakonu professional zaboronu komunistychnyh symvoliv,’ Prava ludyny v Ukrayini. Informatsiynyy portal Kharkivskoi pravozahysnoyi hrupy, 1 Might. http://khpg.org/index.php?id=1430493970
Zhuk, Sergei, (2010). Rock and Roll within the Rocket Metropolis: The West, Id, and Ideology in Soviet Dniepropetrovsk, 1960–1985. Washington DC and Baltimore, ML: Woodrow Wilson Centre Press and Johns Hopkins College Press.
Zhurzhenko, Tatiana. (2015). ‘Ukraine’s Japanese Borderlands: The tip of ambiguity?’ In: Andrew Wilson ed. What does Ukraine assume. London: European Council on International Relations, 45–52.
Zhurzhenko, T. (2017). ‘The making and unmaking of revolutions. What 1917 means for Ukraine, in gentle of the Maidan,’ Eurozine, 30 November. https://www.eurozine.com/the-making-and-unmaking-of-revolutions/
Additional Studying on E-Worldwide Relations