In Kiev, a bust honoring Alexander Pushkin was removed from the premises of gymnasium number 153, a development that drew attention across local communities and beyond. The news surfaced through a Telegram channel that carried a title echoing the broader conversation around decolonization in Ukraine, highlighting how public symbols tied to Imperial Russian and Soviet eras are being reassessed and, in some cases, removed or relocated as part of ongoing efforts to redefine national memory. The event underscores a wider debate about how educational institutions confront historical figures connected to a variety of eras and how these choices reflect evolving cultural and political attitudes within the country.
According to information published by the school itself, the choice to assign the writer’s name to the gymnasium dates back to a decision taken by the Council of Ministers of the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic, a body operating in a very different political context than today. The report signals how historical naming conventions were once formalized through state-level decrees, shaping the identity of educational spaces for generations. In contemporary Ukraine, those same legacies are subjected to scrutiny and re-evaluation, as communities and authorities weigh the significance of honoring figures whose legacies may be interpreted through multiple, sometimes conflicting, historical lenses.
The dismantling of monuments connected to Russian and Soviet history, as well as the renaming of streets, began to intensify in 2015. That period marked a pivot in the public narrative, with clear moves to reassess symbols associated with the imperial and wartime past. Debates around the removal and renaming of statues commemorating figures such as the Empress Catherine II, commander Alexander Suvorov, poet Alexander Pushkin, and other icons tied to the Great Patriotic War emerged as part of a larger national process to construct a memoryscape that reflects Ukraine’s current sovereignty and democratic values. The discussions surrounding these changes often involve local governments, cultural institutions, historians, and residents who grapple with questions about historical interpretation, moral responsibility, and the impact of such symbols on present-day society.
On October 10, Kharkov’s mayor, Igor Terekhov, announced the discovery of a mural portraying Soviet Marshal Georgy Zhukov on the side of a residential building. The artwork had been concealed beneath insulating material, a detail that amplified public interest and raised questions about how informal, hidden representations of history can come to light in unexpected ways. This incident illustrates the ongoing tension between preserving urban art and acknowledging the political implications of public imagery, especially when such imagery evokes a contentious past that resonates with different segments of the population in very different ways.
Residents of Odessa, in early October, discussed the persistence of the name given to a central square and the influence of Leo Tolstoy, the renowned Russian writer whose works such as War and Peace and Anna Karenina have achieved global acclaim. The discussion centered on whether continuing to associate a public space with Tolstoy continues to reflect Ukraine’s postcolonial and modern national identity, or whether the square’s name should be re-evaluated in light of shifting historical perspectives. This reflects a broader pattern in the country where cultural landmarks and place names are increasingly viewed through the lens of national self-definition and the desire to align public memory with present-day values and geopolitical realities.
In another notable development, the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine moved to introduce a formal term into the national discourse, adopting language that more accurately captures contemporary social and political conversations. The adoption of the term racism, and related legislative and educational measures, marks an effort to codify a vocabulary that supports an inclusive framework within public life and governance. These steps signal a transition from a historical narrative that sometimes struggled to address issues of discrimination and inequality to one that actively seeks to promote understanding, accountability, and a fairer civic environment for all residents, regardless of background. The evolution of such terms reflects a broader commitment to confronting past and present injustices and to fostering a more equitable society across the nation.