Yaroslav Hrytsak of Dovhe, now 64, has emerged as one of Ukraine’s most influential historians. A professor at Lviv University, a liberal thinker, and a prominent public intellectual, Hrytsak has earned wide attention through his books, notably Ukraine: The Forging of a Nation. The work has become a bestseller in Ukraine, published just before Russia launched its large-scale invasion in 2022. Its resonance likely stems from its alignment with the historical narrative now shaping the Ukrainian leadership, which contrasts sharply with the perspective of Vladimir Putin.
From this vantage point, Hrytsak rejects claims that Kiev Rus, the 9th-century state centered in Kyiv, was a direct progenitor of modern Russia, arguing that the Rus was never a nation-state. He also underscores the generational turnover sparked by Ukraine’s pro-Western Maidan uprising in 2014, a shift highlighted in an interview with El Periòdico, part of the Prensa Ibérica group. Yet he also stresses that Ukraine still has work ahead to mature into a robust democracy.
Reading Hrytsak’s books almost makes history feel like a weapon in modern conflict.
Indeed it does. When Putin’s speeches are analyzed, it becomes clear that his arguments lean heavily on historical narratives. It is a strategic move, comparable to the slogan “Let’s make America Great Again” used by a former U.S. president. The past, he seems to suggest, is a continuum of violence and deprivation. This is not simply about how the past was shaped; it is about how the present uses history to justify action. The continuation Putin describes is not accepted as true by Hrytsak.
How would one describe Russia and Ukraine’s relationship after Kyiv gained independence in 1991?
First, it is essential to recognize that Russia never accepted Ukraine’s independence. They allowed it to occur only because they believed Ukraine would fail as a state. The real turning point, for Hrytsak, came in 1993-1994 when Ukraine faced the brink of civil conflict over linguistic and regional divides. Yet the Ukrainian transition was peaceful and democratic, as the then-president Leonid Kravchuk handed power to Leonid Kuchma without upheaval. By contrast, Russia has shown less stable political patterns, with outcomes that can often be anticipated before elections take place.
Was the Orange Revolution of 2004 a precursor to Euromaidan in 2014?
In one sense, yes and no. Euromaidan, in truth, resembled a middle-class uprising from major cities, driven not by heavy industry but by services and high tech professionals who demanded better political prospects. It was a youthful revolution led by a new generation—the one that brought Zelensky to the presidency.
Was the uprising successful?
In the sense that it catalyzed reforms and placed corruption on the national agenda, yes, it achieved a consequential shift in priorities.
Is Ukraine a solid democracy today?
No, not yet. Ukraine is moving toward democracy, but there is still a long road ahead. It has struggled to implement crucial reforms needed to build an institutionally sound state, including judicial reform that would establish the rule of law.
Do clashes between Zelenski and the military indicate instability?
Not primarily. The friction stems more from strategic disagreements about how to prosecute the war. Zelenskiy is described as an authoritatian figure with a pragmatic approach, and there are varied views within the Ukrainian state on how to proceed. He believes a swift, offensive posture is necessary to end the conflict promptly, rather than accepting a prolonged defensive phase.
Is there a risk that the military could seize power in Ukraine?
No. While there is always a possibility in volatile states, the Ukrainian armed forces are relatively young and have not established a deep political tradition. A power grab is unlikely to originate from the military class.
Could another Maidan occur?
That remains possible if authoritarian tendencies gain traction. Ukraine today is a very young state, and the danger of authoritarian drift exists. Yet the likelihood of another large-scale domestic upheaval is tempered by the ongoing war, whose existential implications make abrupt political shifts riskier. The conflict puts Ukraine at a decisive crossroads: independence and democracy are still being fought for, and the outcome will shape the region for years to come. The war itself is seen as a defining moment in which Russia opposes Ukrainian sovereignty and democratic development.