Untitled Notes

Viktor Yanukovich's first act after inauguration on February 25 was to delete the link to the Holodomor from the president’s official website.
His predecessor, Viktor Yushchenko, emphasized the Holodomor, highlighting the "struggle of memory over forgetting."
Yushchenko promoted the remembrance of the Holodomor to help transition Ukraine towards democracy.
Yanukovich's actions reveal a significant political and identity shift following the recent elections.

Post-Orange Revolution Ukraine associated national identity with democracy and Western alignment.
Contrarily, under Vladimir Putin, Russian identity has been linked to authoritarianism and imperialism.
Yanukovich's Party of Regions has its strongest base in southeastern Ukraine (Donbas), an area with a proud Communist history.
In Donbas, there is pride in figures like Leonid Brezhnev and Aleksei Stakhanov, along with displays of Soviet imagery reflective of their political culture.
Yanukovich's shift back towards Moscow reflects a rejection of the nationalist narrative resurfaced post-Orange Revolution.

The Ukrainian identity, recently revitalized, is now threatened through governmental policies targeting education, culture, language, and history.
Educational institutions have seen interference, with university leaders capitulating to Russocentric ideals.
The only remaining institutions resisting pressure are the Ukrainian Catholic University in Lviv and Mohyla Academy in Kiev.
Yanukovich is actively targeting history, aiming to reshape Ukraine's national narrative historically linked to trauma and oppression.

New nations establish their identities from historical narratives encompassing heroes, myths, and catastrophic events.
Ukraine's identity has been formed from a history marred by terror:
- 15 million excess deaths (1914-1948):
- World War I: 1.3 million
- Russian Civil War/Polish-Soviet War: 2.3 million
- Holodomor (1932-33): 4 million
- Great Terror: 300,000
- World War II: 6.5 million
- Postwar famine and anti-nationalist campaigns: 400,000

Historians like Timothy Snyder have acknowledged the severe impact on Ukraine, likening it to being at the heart of darkness in Europe.
The systemic brutality continued long after Stalin's death in 1953, creating a population that largely favored Soviet nostalgia.
The Holodomor stands out as a uniquely catastrophic event prompting commemoration and remembrance efforts in contemporary Ukraine.

Survivors highlighted the Holodomor in the West, compiling evidence in the 1950s with works like "The Black Deeds of the Kremlin: A White Book," though met with skepticism.
By the early 1980s, a shift occurred in the academic focus towards Soviet non-Russian republics, reigniting interest in the Holodomor.
Recognition of the famine as part of Stalin's systematic repression accelerated with movements like Yushchenko's advocacy.

Following Ukraine's independence in 1991, defining the Holodomor's nature became urgent, characterized by a two-fold debate on its genocidal classification.
Pro-genocide Arguments: Ukrainian national democrats assert the famine was a targeted genocide against Ukrainians.
Counterarguments: Some groups suggest it was an agricultural catastrophe affecting multiple nations, diluting its Ukrainian specificity.

Lemkin, the originator of the term genocide, posited the famine was not merely mass murder, but an act aimed at cultural and national destruction. His four components of genocide against Ukraine include:
1. An assault on intelligentsia to weaken national identity.
2. An attack on religious institutions and identities.
3. Targeting of farmers and community traditions via starvation.
4. Fragmentation of the Ukrainian populace by resettling foreign peoples.

The debate on the Holodomor's classifications became politically charged, entwined with the national identity and state-building projects.
Yanukovich’s rejection of the genocide label illustrated a wider struggle over historical narratives and Ukrainian identity.
Differences in the interpretation of historical events created a rift between pro-Western democrats and pro-Russian factions.

Russian authorities actively attempted to counter the narrative of the Holodomor as genocide by producing educational material emphasizing a shared history with Ukraine.
The Kremlin’s assertions led to funding operations promoting integration of Ukrainian history with Russian narratives.

Ukraine undertook various initiatives, including the establishment of Holodomor memorials and international recognition campaigns.
Notable milestones included the 75th anniversary commemorations in 2008.
Different nations and the European Parliament responded variously, with some recognising it as genocide and others framing it as a crime against humanity.

As political tension mounted before the 2010 presidential elections, prioritizing the Holodomor narrative became a cornerstone for national democratic groups in opposition to pro-Russian sentiments.
The stark division in historical narratives sustains ongoing political tensions, with Yanukovich's administration aiming to erase recognition of the Holodomor's genocidal implications.
This historical manipulation creates significant implications for Ukraine’s identity formation, casting dissent against the regime as an act of defiance.