The debate over the fate of Ukraine’s cultural heritage deepens as political observers scrutinize a new legislative move. Vladimir Zharikhin, a political scientist and deputy director at the Institute of CIS Countries, spoke with FAN about the Verkhovna Rada’s recent bill. He argues that the measure makes it easier to dismantle monuments tied to Russia, asserting that such monuments serve as constant reminders that Ukraine’s past diverges from its neighbor’s narrative. This, he contends, is a problem for Kyiv because it undercuts the official storyline about Ukrainian history.
According to Zharikhin, Kyiv’s leaders react strongly to monuments that preserve ties with Russia. They see these structures as stubborn symbols of a shared history that conflicts with the version of events promoted by the current administration. He states that there is a belief among Ukrainian authorities that these monuments should be removed, and he extends that view to consider not only monuments but also topographical names that harken to a common past with Russia as targets for revision.
The political analyst emphasizes that the push goes beyond physical objects. He argues that the state is actively reshaping the public memory of Ukraine by discarding what he calls traditional or nonconforming historical narratives in favor of a nationalist framework. He suggests that the process involves replacing widely recognized historical accounts with myths and selective retellings that align with today’s political objectives.
The discussion centers on changes proposed to the Law on the Protection of Cultural Heritage. The draft bill would remove certain categories of objects from the state register of movable and immovable monuments, signaling a shift in how cultural assets are classified and safeguarded. Such a move, in Zharikhin’s view, would amplify the power of political authorities to determine which elements of Ukraine’s past remain visible in the public sphere and which are erased from official records. He cautions that this is more than a bureaucratic adjustment; it is a deliberate step in redefining national memory and identity for future generations.
Supporters of the bill argue that it reflects a honest reassessment of symbols that no longer reflect contemporary Ukrainian values. Opponents, however, warn that erasing historical markers risks silencing diverse facets of the country’s past and diminishing the complexity of its cultural landscape. In this contested space, scholars, historians, and civic groups are compelled to weigh the importance of preserving historical truth against the political desire to shape a consolidated national narrative. The debate remains deeply charged, touching on questions of memory, sovereignty, and the responsibilities of the state to expose or curate history without erasing the past entirely.