From: https://www.britannica.com/place/Ukraine/The-Nazi-occupation-of-Soviet-Ukraine
Keywords:
The Nazi occupation of Soviet Ukraine
The surprise German invasion of the U.S.S.R. began on June 22, 1941. The Soviets, during their hasty retreat, shot their political prisoners and, whenever possible, evacuated personnel, dismantled and removed industrial plants, and conducted a scorched-earth policy—
· blowing up buildings and installations,
· destroying crops and food reserves, and
· flooding mines.
· Almost four million people were evacuated east of the Urals for the duration of the war.
The Germans moved swiftly, however, and by the end of November virtually all of Ukraine was under their control.
Initially, the Germans were greeted as liberators by some of the Ukrainian populace. In Galicia especially, there had long been a widespread belief that Germany, as the avowed enemy of Poland and the U.S.S.R., was the Ukrainians’ natural ally for the attainment of their independence. The illusion was quickly shattered. The Germans were accompanied on their entry into Lviv on June 30 [1941] by members of OUN-B, who that same day proclaimed the restoration of Ukrainian statehood and the formation of a provisional state administration; within days the organizers of this action were arrested and interned in concentration camps (as were both Bandera and, later, Melnyk). Far from supporting Ukrainian political aspirations, the Nazis in August
· attached Galicia administratively to Poland,
· returned Bukovina to Romania, and
· gave Romania control over the area between the Dniester and Southern Buh rivers as the province of Transnistria, with its capital at Odessa.
The remainder was organized as the Reichskommissariat Ukraine.
In the occupied territories, the Nazis sought to implement their “racial” policies. In the fall of 1941 began the mass killings of Jews that continued through 1944. An estimated 1.5 million Ukrainian Jews perished, and over 800,000 were displaced to the east; at Baby Yar (Ukrainian: Babyn Yar) in Kyiv, nearly 34,000 were killed in just the first two days of massacre in the city. The Nazis were aided at times by auxiliary forces recruited from the local population. (See also Holocaust: The Einsatzgruppen.)
A memorial ceremony being held near the commemorative sculpture at the Baby Yar site in Ukraine, where Nazis perpetrated a mass murder of Jews during World War II.
© Babi Yar Society/United States Holocaust Memorial Museum
In the Reichskommissariat, ruthlessly administered by Erich Koch, Ukrainians were slated for servitude. The collective farms, whose dissolution was the fervent hope of the peasantry, were left intact, industry was allowed to deteriorate, and the cities were deprived of foodstuffs as all available resources were directed to support the German war effort. Some 2.2 million people were taken from Ukraine to Germany as slave labourers (Ostarbeiter, or “eastern workers”). Cultural activities were repressed, and education was limited to the elementary level. Only the revived Ukrainian Orthodox Church was permitted to resume its work as a national institution. Somewhat better was the situation of Ukrainians in Galicia, where restricted cultural, civic, and relief activities were permitted under centralized control.
Under such conditions of brutality, Ukrainian political activity, predicated originally on cooperation with the Germans, increasingly turned to underground organizational work and resistance. The OUN groups that streamed eastward in 1941 were soon subjected by the German authorities to repressive measures, including execution, so they propagated their nationalist views clandestinely and, through their contact with the local population, began to revise their ideology in a more democratic, pluralist direction. In eastern and central Ukraine, secret Communist Party cells maintained an underground existence, and a Soviet partisan movement developed in the northern forests. Early in 1942 began the formation of nationalist partisan units in Volhynia, and later in Galicia, that became known as the Ukrainian Insurgent Army (Ukrainska Povstanska Armiia; UPA). As well as conducting guerrilla warfare with the Germans, the Soviet partisans and the UPA fought each other.
Ukraine reunited under Soviet rule
After their victory over the Germans at the Battle of Stalingrad in early 1943, the Soviets launched a counteroffensive westward. In mid-1943 the Germans began their slow retreat from Ukraine, leaving wholesale destruction in their wake. In November the Soviets reentered Kyiv. With the approach of the front, guerrilla activity in western Ukraine intensified, and bloody clashes that claimed large numbers of civilian victims occurred between Ukrainians and Poles. In spring 1944 the Red Army began to penetrate into Galicia, and by the end of October [1943] all of Ukraine was again under Soviet control.
The Soviet victory, the Red Army’s occupation of eastern Europe, and Allied diplomacy resulted in a permanent redrawing of Ukraine’s western frontiers. With compensation of German territories in the west, Poland agreed to the cession of Volhynia and Galicia; a mutual population exchange—and the subsequent deportation of the remaining Ukrainian population by Poland to its new western territories—created for the first time in centuries a clear ethnic, as well as political, Polish-Ukrainian border. Northern Bukovina was reoccupied in 1944 and recognized as part of Ukraine in the Paris Peace Treaty of 1947. Transcarpathia, which had reverted from Hungary to Czechoslovakia in 1944, was ceded to Ukraine in 1945 by a Czech-Soviet government agreement. In 1945 Ukraine became a charter member of the United Nations and subsequently became a signatory of peace treaties with Germany’s wartime allies—Italy, Finland, Romania, Hungary, and Bulgaria.
Ukraine’s human and material losses during World War II were enormous. Some 5 to 7 million people perished. Even with the return of evacuees from the east and the repatriation of forced labourers from Germany, Ukraine’s estimated population of 36 million in 1947 was almost 5 million less than before the war. Because more than 700 cities and towns and 28,000 villages had been destroyed, 10 million people were left homeless. Only 20 percent of the industrial enterprises and 15 percent of agricultural equipment and machinery remained intact, and the transportation network was severely damaged. The material losses constituted an estimated 40 percent of Ukraine’s national wealth.
Soviet Ukraine in the postwar period
The last years of Stalin’s rule
Postwar reconstruction, the reimposition of totalitarian controls and terror, and the Sovietization of western Ukraine were the hallmarks of the last years of Stalin’s rule. Economic reconstruction was undertaken immediately as Soviet authorities reestablished control over the recovered territories. The fourth five-year plan, as in the prewar years, stressed heavy industry to the detriment of consumer needs. By 1950, Ukraine’s industrial output exceeded the prewar level. In agriculture, recovery proceeded much more slowly, and prewar levels of production were not reached until the 1960s. A famine in 1946–47 resulting from postwar dislocations and drought claimed nearly one million casualties.
The prewar system of totalitarian control exercised through the Communist Party and the secret police was quickly reimposed. Khrushchev continued to head the CP(B)U as first secretary—except briefly from March to December 1947—until his promotion to secretary of the Central Committee in Moscow in December 1949; he was succeeded by Leonid Melnikov. Purges in party ranks were relatively mild. However, real and alleged Nazi collaborators, former German prisoners of war and repatriated slave workers, Ukrainian “bourgeois nationalists,” and others suspected of disloyalty—essentially hundreds of thousands of people—were sent to concentration camps in the far north and Siberia. A hard-line ideological campaign to stamp out Western influences went hand in hand with a renewed Russification drive. Ukrainian writers, artists, and scholars, who in the wartime years had been permitted to develop patriotic themes and sentiments in a mobilization effort against the Germans, were now accused of Ukrainian nationalism and subjected to persecution and repression. An “anticosmopolitan” campaign destroyed the remaining vestiges of cultural institutions of a Jewish community decimated by the Holocaust.
The Sovietization of western Ukraine was a prolonged and violent process. The UPA, under the leadership of Roman Shukhevych (killed 1950), continued effective military operations against Soviet troops until the early 1950s. The armed resistance received covert support from the local rural population, embittered by the concurrent forced collectivization drive, reminiscent of the 1930s in eastern Ukraine. Also accused of abetting the partisans, and Ukrainian nationalism in general, was the Greek Catholic church. In April 1945 Metropolitan Yosyf Slipy and the entire hierarchy in Galicia were arrested and later sentenced to long imprisonment (only Slipy survived, to be released in 1963 and sent into exile in Rome). After arrests and intimidation of the clergy, a synod held in Lviv in March 1946—in fact, on Stalin’s orders—proclaimed the “reunification” of the Ukrainian Greek Catholics with the Russian Orthodox Church. By analogous means, the Greek Catholic church in Transcarpathia was abolished in 1949. Officially declared “self-liquidated,” the Greek Catholic church maintained a clandestine existence through subsequent decades of Soviet rule. Overall, approximately half a million people were deported from western Ukraine in connection with the suppression of the insurgency and nationalist activity, religious persecution, and collectivization.
The period of Khrushchev
Khrushchev’s ascendancy over his rivals in Moscow after Stalin’s death in 1953 was of particular significance for Ukraine. As first secretary of the CP(B)U, Khrushchev had gained intimate knowledge of Ukraine, staffed party and government posts with his own trusted appointees, and become familiar with Ukrainian cultural elites. In contrast to Stalin’s anti-Ukrainian paranoia, Khrushchev harboured few prejudices against Ukrainians who adhered to the party line and served the Soviet state with loyalty.
Shortly after the death of Stalin, Melnikov was removed as first secretary of the Communist Party of Ukraine, or CPU—as the CP(B)U was renamed in 1952—for “deviations in nationality policy,” specifically, promotion of nonnative cadres and Russification of higher education in western Ukraine. His replacement was Oleksy Kyrychenko, only the second Ukrainian to fill the post. This and accompanying changes in personnel in the party and government boosted morale and confidence, especially as their sphere of competence was also steadily increased. Unionwide celebrations in 1954 of the 300th anniversary of the “reunification” of Ukraine with Russia were another sign of the Ukrainians’ rising (though clearly junior) status; on the occasion, the Crimean Peninsula, from which the indigenous Tatar population had been deported en masse at the end of World War II, was transferred from the Russian S.F.S.R. to Ukraine. Ukrainian party officials began to receive promotions to central party organs in Moscow close to the levers of power. In 1957 Kyrychenko was transferred to Moscow as a secretary of the Central Committee of the CPSU; his place as first secretary of the CPU was taken by Mykola Pidhorny (Nikolay Podgorny), who moved to Moscow as a secretary of the Central Committee in 1963. There was a steady expansion of party membership, which by the end of 1958 exceeded one million, of whom 60.3 percent were Ukrainians and 28.2 percent Russians; more than 40 percent had joined the party after the war.
Khrushchev also introduced a limited decentralization in government administration and economic management. These measures enhanced the powers and stoked the ambitions of the Ukrainian party and government leaders and bureaucracy, and this in turn elicited warnings against “localism” from Moscow. Economic recovery in Ukraine continued, with impressive—though diminishing over time—rates of growth in industry. Some concessions were made in the provision of consumer goods. Agriculture lagged, however, despite reforms in the administration of collective farms to increase productivity.
By 1953 mass terror had abated, and repression came to be applied more discriminately. An amnesty in 1955–56 released the majority of concentration camp inmates, and several hundred thousand returned to Ukraine, though many political prisoners continued to serve their long sentences. During the cultural thaw and the de-Stalinization campaign that followed Khrushchev’s secret speech in 1956, Ukrainian cultural elites pressed more boldly for concessions. Writers who had suffered under Stalin received praise and honours. Qualified rehabilitation was extended to condemned figures from the 1920s and ’30s, and historians began to treat previously forbidden topics. Some proscribed literary works were republished, and a number of new periodicals made their appearance, including the first journal since the 1930s devoted to Ukrainian history.
In the latter half of Khrushchev’s reign, however, a distinct trend toward Russification reemerged. An educational reform adopted in 1959 initiated a long process of curtailment of Ukrainian-language instruction in schools. In 1961 the new party program emphasized the importance of the Russian language for the integration of the Soviet peoples and spoke of the diminishing significance of borders between Soviet republics. Party theoreticians evolved the theory of “fusion of nations” that would be accompanied by the disappearance of national languages as Soviet society progressed toward communism.
Small, clandestine dissident groups began to form in the late 1950s, primarily as discussion circles on Ukrainian political and cultural alternatives. Some dozen such groups were uncovered by the secret police and their members imprisoned between 1958 and 1964. With open opposition to the party line impossible, defense of the Ukrainian language and culture was usually expressed indirectly—through poetry extolling the mother tongue, complaints about the unavailability of Ukrainian-language textbooks, and calls for subscription to Ukrainian periodicals.
Khrushchev’s last years in power witnessed the rise to prominence of two figures—Petro Shelest and Volodymyr Shcherbytsky—who between them dominated Ukraine’s political landscape for almost 30 years. The earlier careers of both encompassed party work in regional party organizations. In 1961 Shcherbytsky became chairman of the Council of Ministers (premier) of Ukraine. Upon the elevation of Pidhorny to Moscow, in June 1963 Shelest succeeded him as party leader in Ukraine, and simultaneously Shcherbytsky lost the premiership and went into eclipse.
Ukraine under Shelest
Until Leonid Brezhnev achieved preeminence by the mid-1970s, power in Moscow after Khrushchev’s ouster was shared by a collective leadership headed by a triumvirate consisting of Brezhnev, Aleksey Kosygin, and Pidhorny. Shelest, Pidhorny’s protégé, became a full member of the Politburo within a month of Khrushchev’s ouster. However, Brezhnev’s client, Shcherbytsky, shortly reemerged from relative obscurity; he reassumed the premiership in Kyiv in 1965 and became a candidate member of the Politburo in Moscow in 1966.
Although the new leadership in Moscow quickly reversed many of Khrushchev’s decentralizing measures, it initially showed greater sensitivity toward the non-Russians. The seeming retreat in Moscow’s nationalities policy, connected with the leadership’s preoccupation with the succession struggle, facilitated the three main trends that characterize the Shelest era in Ukraine: the growing cultural revival, greater assertiveness by Kyiv’s political elite, and the development of a large-scale dissident movement.
Cultural Revival & More Assertiveness by Kyiv
The cultural revival was built on the hard-won, though necessarily limited, achievements of the de-Stalinization thaw. It was spearheaded by a younger “generation of the ’60s” (shestydesyatnyky) who, without the formative firsthand experience of Stalin’s reign of terror, experimented with themes and forms that at times provoked the ire of the preceding generation. More proscribed figures from the past were rehabilitated as literary scholars, and historians explored previously forbidden topics. New journals and serials devoted to Ukrainian history made their appearance, and monumental encyclopaedic publications were launched. Such efforts came under severe attack from party ideologues and the conservative cultural establishment. Announced publications failed to appear, published works were withdrawn from circulation, and numerous works of art were destroyed. Plans prepared on the ministerial level in Kyiv for a partial de-Russification of higher education were never implemented.
Nevertheless, the cultural achievements were unparalleled since the Ukrainization period in the 1920s. They were made possible by the support of influential segments of the party leadership, most notably Shelest himself. In addition to supporting Ukrainian culture, Shelest defended the economic interests of Ukraine, pressing for a larger share in the U.S.S.R.’s allocation of investment and greater republican control in economic management. These efforts were aimed in part at strengthening the party’s legitimacy in the eyes of the Ukrainian population. During Shelest’s tenure, Communist Party membership in Ukraine grew at a rate double the all-union average to reach 2.5 million by 1971.
The Dissident Movement
From its embryonic beginnings in the late 1950s and early ’60s, the dissident movement continued to develop under Shelest. In 1965 the first arrests and trials of 20 dissidents occurred; profiles of these dissenters were circulated clandestinely, and their compiler, the journalist Vyacheslav Chornovil, was also arrested and imprisoned. The national dissent movement grew rapidly thereafter. It took the form of protest letters and petitions to the authorities, the formation of informal clubs and discussion circles, and public meetings and demonstrations. Increasingly the materials prepared by the dissidents were circulated through samvydav (“self-publication”—the Ukrainian equivalent of Russian samizdat), some of which made its way abroad and was published. An outstanding work in this regard was Ivan Dziuba’s “Internationalism or Russification?”; it was translated and published in several languages. Throughout the 1960s, however, reprisals for dissident activity were generally mild.
Beginning in 1970, there were signs that the relative permissiveness of the Shelest regime was drawing to a close. The head of the KGB in Ukraine was replaced. Harsh rhetoric about “anti-Soviet activities” and “bourgeois nationalism” increased; tribute was paid to “the great Russian people.” In 1971 Brezhnev’s protégé and Shelest’s rival, Shcherbytsky, was elevated to full member of the Politburo. Between January and April 1972, several hundred dissidents and cultural activists were arrested in a wave of repression that swept Ukraine. In May Shelest was removed as Ukraine’s party leader, succeeded by Shcherbytsky. Shelest continued for another year as a member of the Politburo and a deputy prime minister in Moscow, but in May 1973 he lost all his remaining party and government positions.
Ukraine under Shcherbytsky
Shcherbytsky’s promotion marked an important step in the consolidation of power in Moscow by his patron, Brezhnev, and a turning point in Ukrainian postwar politics. Shcherbytsky survived in office 17 years until his resignation in the fall of 1989, a few weeks before his death—long after the death of Brezhnev in 1982 and well into the tenure of Mikhail Gorbachev.
Personnel changes in the party and government followed gradually after Shcherbytsky’s accession to office; many of them involved the removal of Shelest’s supporters and the promotion of cadres associated with the site of Shcherbytsky’s (and Brezhnev’s) earlier career, the Dnipropetrovsk regional Communist Party organization. The most significant occurred in October 1972: Valentyn Malanchuk, who had previously conducted ideological work in the nationally highly charged Lviv region, was appointed secretary for ideology. A purge in 1973–75 removed almost 5 percent of the CPU members from party rolls.
Arrests of national and human rights activists continued through 1972–73. The bulk of samvydav literature was now produced in labour camps, and much of it made its way abroad, where it was published. Following the signing of the international Helsinki Accords, with their human rights provisions, in 1975, the Helsinki Watch Group was founded in Ukraine, headed by the poet Mykola Rudenko; by the end of the 1970s, its members were almost all in concentration camps or in exile abroad. The expirations of political prisoners’ sentences were increasingly followed by rearrest and new sentences on charges of criminal activity. Incarceration in psychiatric institutions became a new method of political repression.
Political repression was accompanied by a broad assault on Ukrainian culture and intensification of Russification. Immediately after Shelest’s fall, the circulation of the most popular Ukrainian periodicals was substantially reduced, and most of the new journals and serials started under Shelest ceased publication; a general decline in Ukrainian-language publishing and education continued during Shcherbytsky’s tenure. For two years after his appointment as secretary for ideology, Malanchuk supervised a purge of Ukrainian scholarly and cultural institutions, with numerous expulsions from the Academy of Sciences, universities, editorial boards, and the official organizations of writers, artists, and cinematographers. The general trend was unaffected by Malanchuk’s unexpected removal in 1979, which may have been a concession to the disaffected cultural intelligentsia, whose cooperation was needed in the upcoming celebrations of the 325th anniversary of the “reunification of Ukraine with Russia” that year and the 1,500th anniversary of the founding of Kyiv in 1982.
Ukraine’s economic performance continued to deteriorate throughout the 1970s and ’80s. The rates of growth declined, and serious problems beset especially the important ferrous metallurgy and coal mining industries. Agricultural production was adversely affected by a series of droughts, a lack of incentives, and excessive centralization in collective farm management. Soviet energy policy increasingly emphasized nuclear power, and in April 1986 one of the nuclear power plants in Ukraine, at Chernobyl just northwest of Kyiv, suffered the worst nuclear accident in history. Dozens died in the immediate aftermath, and tens of thousands were evacuated. An estimated 5 million people were exposed to elevated levels of radiation, and hundreds of thousands received doses that were sufficient to increase the risk of various cancers. Decades after the accident, the incidence of thyroid cancer remained sharply higher among residents of the Chernobyl area than among the general population. Nevertheless, and despite changes in the top leadership in Moscow since 1982, Shcherbytsky remained securely in office.
Ukraine on the path to independence
An upsurge of nationalism was the unexpected and unintended consequence of Gorbachev’s attempt to grapple with the Soviet Union’s mounting economic problems. Beginning in 1986, Gorbachev launched a campaign for an ill-defined economic perestroika (“restructuring”) and called for an honest confrontation with real problems, or glasnost (“openness”), which further entailed popular involvement in the process. In the non-Russian republics, these policies opened the opportunity to voice not merely economic but also predominantly national concerns.
In contrast to the rapid growth of mass movements in the Baltic and Transcaucasian republics, in Ukraine the national revival stimulated by glasnost developed only gradually. From mid-1986 the Ukrainian press and media, at first cautiously, began to broach long-forbidden topics. While this process expanded and intensified, the spontaneous formation locally of unofficial groups, primarily in Kyiv and Lviv, began in 1987. The year 1988 witnessed the rise of mass mobilization, with the first public demonstrations—in Lviv from June through August and in Kyiv in November—and the emergence of embryonic national organizations. Finally, the national revival in Ukraine entered the stage of overt politicization in 1989.
In the three years 1987–89, new leaders emerged. Especially prominent were many cultural activists from the shestydesyatnyky of the Shelest period, as well as former dissidents. The issues that galvanized Ukrainian society at this time included such traditional concerns as language, culture, and history, resurgent interests such as religion, and new concerns over the environment and the economy.
Russification and the parlous state of the Ukrainian language in schools, publishing, and state administration received the earliest attention. Fears about the long-term language trends were confirmed by data from the 1989 census: at the same time that Ukrainians had declined as a percentage of Ukraine’s population, their attachment to Ukrainian as their native language had fallen even more rapidly. Debates over the issue culminated in the passage of a language law in autumn 1989 that for the first time gave Ukrainian official status as the republic’s state language.
A campaign to fill in the “blank spots” in history aimed to restore public awareness of neglected or suppressed historical events and figures such as Hetman Ivan Mazepa, to rehabilitate historians such as Mykhaylo Hrushevsky, and to republish banned works of pre-Soviet historical scholarship. Particularly intense were efforts to introduce knowledge of the Stalin period, especially the Great Famine of 1932–33, which became labeled the “Ukrainian genocide.” Fresh revelations appeared in the press about mass graves of political prisoners executed in the Stalin era. To honour the victims of Stalinism and to promote investigations of the repressions and famine of the 1930s, the All-Ukrainian “Memorial” Society was founded in March 1989 based on already existing local groups.
A religious revival was also under way in 1988, greatly stimulated by celebrations of a millennium of Christianity in Kyivan (Kievan) Rus. Lavish government-supported Russian Orthodox solemnities in Moscow were countered with unofficial celebrations throughout Ukraine, including open observances by the proscribed Greek Catholics. As bishops and clergy emerged from the underground, demands grew for the relegalization of the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church. Defections by the clergy and entire congregations from Russian Orthodoxy began in the fall of 1989, and, on the eve of Gorbachev’s visit to the Vatican in December, Soviet authorities announced that Greek Catholic communities would be allowed official registration. In a parallel development, the formation of an initiative group for the restoration of the Ukrainian Autocephalous Orthodox Church was proclaimed in February 1989 in Kyiv.
Continuing revelations about the scale of the Chernobyl catastrophe and mounting evidence of official wrongdoing in its aftermath, combined with fresh disclosures about other disasters and the environmental ruination of Ukraine, engendered a widespread ecological movement. On the initiative of scientists and writers, environmental groups were formed in virtually every region, and in December 1987 they joined in a national association, Zeleny Svit (“Green World”). In the course of 1989, Zeleny Svit evolved into a potent political force led by the writer Yury Shcherbak. (See also environmentalism.)
The traditionally passive industrial workers in Ukraine also became organized, especially in the Donbas. Years of neglect by Moscow resulted in steady deterioration of the coal-mining industry and increasingly hazardous working conditions in the mines. Complaints in the form of letters by miners began to appear as early as 1985. But it was only in July 1989 that a spontaneous movement of self-organization by Donbas miners led to a strike. Concessions extended by Moscow were insufficient to stem the growing alienation. In the course of the year, the overwhelmingly Russian-speaking miners, with concerns far removed from those of the Ukrainian cultural intelligentsia, began to be drawn to the Ukrainian national movement as a defender of their interests in confrontation with Moscow.
The first significant organization with an overtly political agenda was launched in March 1988. This was the Ukrainian Helsinki Union, formed by recently released political prisoners, many of whom had been members of the Helsinki Watch Group of the mid-1970s. The Helsinki Union’s declared aim was the restoration of Ukraine’s sovereignty as the main guarantee of its population’s national and human rights and the transformation of the U.S.S.R. into a genuine confederation of states. Headed by Levko Lukyanenko, with Vyacheslav Chornovil as an important leader, the Ukrainian Helsinki Union had branches in all regions of Ukraine by 1989.
At all stages, the process of national revival and autonomous self-organization encountered bitter resistance from the CPU, which under Shcherbytsky remained among the most unreconstructed of the U.S.S.R.’s republican Communist Party organizations. Opposition to the rising democratic forces took the form of propaganda attacks in the press and media, intimidation, harassment, and occasional arrests. Shcherbytsky himself continued firmly in charge of the CPU, in a sign of Moscow’s fear of destabilization in Ukraine. Nevertheless, the official policies of perestroika and glasnost inhibited more-extreme measures, while the example of rapid change in other republics, especially the Baltics, emboldened democratic Ukrainian activists.
Parliamentary democracy
The year 1989 marked the transition from social mobilization to mass politicization of life in Ukraine. Elections to a new supreme legislative body in Moscow, the Congress of People’s Deputies, brought victory to a significant number of noncommunist candidates. Numerous Communist Party candidates, including highly placed officials, suffered defeat, all the more humiliating in those cases when they ran unopposed. (In these cases, voters crossed off the single name on the ballot; if an unopposed candidate failed to capture more than 50 percent of the vote, the election was declared void and the candidate was barred from running in subsequent races.) The party’s confidence was shaken, and resignations began to rise significantly.
Attempts to organize a popular front received impetus in January 1989 under the aegis of the Writers’ Union of Ukraine. Taking the name Narodnyi Rukh Ukrainy (“Popular Movement of Ukraine for Reconstruction,” often shortened to Rukh), to emphasize its congruence with the policies of Gorbachev (particularly perestroika), the front nevertheless ran into hostility from the CPU. Specifically eschewing the role of a political opposition, Rukh advocated a program of democratization and support for human, national, and minority rights. The founding congress was held in September and elected a leadership headed by the poet Ivan Drach.
On September 28, 1989, Shcherbytsky, long rumoured to be ill, resigned as first secretary of the CPU. His successor, Volodymyr Ivashko, while praising his predecessor and reaffirming the CPU’s basic policy line, made the first cautious references to new political realities and the need for the Communist Party to take these into account. These realities included a rapid institutionalization of national, civic, and religious life that outpaced legal recognition.
The most significant development of 1990 was the beginning of parliamentary democracy. The first competitive elections to the Ukrainian parliament (which replaced the old-style Supreme Soviet), held on March 4, broke the Communist Party’s monopoly on political power in Ukraine. The parliament that met in mid-May had a substantial democratic bloc that, with the defection of numerous communist deputies from strict party discipline on particular issues, reduced the CPU’s core majority to 239 of the 450 members. Changes in the political leadership proceeded rapidly and culminated in the parliament’s election of the recent CPU secretary for ideology, Leonid Kravchuk, as its chairman. On July 16 sovereignty (though not yet independence) was claimed in the name of the “people of Ukraine”—the entirety of Ukraine’s resident population without regard to nationality or ethnicity; the declaration marked the onset of a gradual convergence of views on key issues between the communist majority and the democratic opposition, whose agenda was increasingly adopted by the pragmatic Kravchuk.
Gorbachev, faced with a rising tide of nationalism, had already proposed a renegotiated new union treaty that would extend broad autonomy to the Soviet republics while preserving central control of foreign policy, the military, and the financial system. To forestall the cession of newly asserted sovereign rights to Moscow, student-led mass demonstrations and a hunger strike were held in Kyiv in October 1990; the protests extracted concessions that included the resignation of the premier. In the same month, Rukh, whose membership was growing rapidly, proclaimed as its ultimate goal the total independence of Ukraine. Only the CPU declared its support for Gorbachev’s plans of a new union treaty.
A coup d’état organized in August 1991 by hard-line members of Gorbachev’s government in Moscow collapsed within two days. In its wake the Ukrainian parliament, in emergency session, declared the full independence of Ukraine on August 24. The declaration was made subject to popular ratification by a referendum on December 1.
Independent Ukraine
The population of Ukraine voted overwhelmingly for independence in the referendum of December 1, 1991. (About 84 percent of eligible voters turned out for the referendum, and about 90 percent of them endorsed independence.) In an election coinciding with the referendum, Kravchuk was chosen as president. By this time, several important developments had taken place in Ukraine, including the dissolution of the Communist Party and the development (under the newly appointed Minister of Defense Kostiantyn Morozov) of the infrastructure for separate Ukrainian armed forces. Ukraine also had withstood political pressure from Moscow to reconsider its course toward independence and enter into a restructured Soviet Union. A week after the independence referendum, the leaders of Ukraine, Russia, and Belarus agreed to establish the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS).[i] Shortly thereafter the U.S.S.R. was formally disbanded.
Postindependence issues
Following the dissolution of the Soviet Union, Ukraine was commonly regarded as the former Soviet republic (outside of those in the Baltic region) with the best chance of achieving economic prosperity and integration with Europe as a whole. But by the end of the 20th century, the Ukrainian economy had faltered badly, and social and political change fell short of transforming Ukraine into a wholly European state. Nevertheless, Ukraine registered some important gains in this period. It consolidated its independence and developed its state structure, regularized relations with neighbouring countries (in spite of some contentious issues), made some important steps in the process of democratization, and established itself as a member in good standing of the international community.
State building and diplomacy
President Kravchuk’s immediate priority was state building. Under his stewardship, Ukraine quickly established its armed forces and the infrastructure of an independent state. Citizenship was extended to the people of Ukraine on an inclusive (rather than ethnic or linguistic) basis. Ukraine received widespread international recognition and developed its diplomatic service. A pro-Western foreign policy was instituted, and official pronouncements stressed that Ukraine was a “European” rather than a “Eurasian” country. The state symbols and national anthem of the post-World War I Ukrainian National Republic were reinstituted. Yet at the same time that independent Ukraine was acquiring the attributes of statehood, it faced a number of contentious issues that severely strained the fledgling country:
· the nature of its participation in the CIS,
· nuclear disarmament,
· the status of Crimea, and
· control of the Black Sea Fleet and its port city of Sevastopol.
While inflaming passions on both sides of the border, these issues also helped to define Ukraine’s new relationship with Russia.
Ukrainian leaders perceived the CIS to be no more than a loose association of former Soviet republics and a means of assisting in a “civilized divorce” from the union. In contrast, Russia regarded it as a means of retaining some degree of regional integration (under Moscow’s political domination) and sought to establish it as a supranational body that would succeed the U.S.S.R. These differing views were not clear at the meeting that created the CIS, but within several weeks they had become very evident. Disagreements between Russia and Ukraine ensued as the latter repudiated proposals for a CIS army under unified command, a common CIS citizenship, and the guarding of “external” rather than national borders. Remaining vigilant that involvement with the CIS not compromise its sovereignty, Ukraine participated only as an associate member. However, after more than seven years of independence, with the CIS no longer a real threat to the country’s sovereignty, Ukraine finally agreed to join the CIS Interparliamentary Assembly in March 1999.
The issue of nuclear disarmament proved a vexing one. In the wake of the Chernobyl disaster, antinuclear popular sentiment ran high in Ukraine; even prior to independence, Ukrainian leaders had committed themselves to divesting the country of nuclear weapons. But throughout this period, Ukrainians had not been aware of the size of the nuclear arsenal on their soil—Ukraine was effectively the third largest nuclear power in the world at the time—nor had they considered the high costs and logistical problems of nuclear divestment. After approximately half of the arsenal had been transferred to Russia early in 1992, the leaders of independent Ukraine began to question the wisdom of blindly handing over the weapons to a potential adversary that was now claiming portions of Ukraine’s territory (i.e., Crimea). Ukraine then expressed reservations about the complete removal of the weapons from the country before it could obtain some guarantees for its security as well as financial compensation for the dismantling and transportation of the warheads. This apparent backtracking caused major concern in the West (particularly in the United States) and Russia. Intense diplomatic pressure followed, and Ukraine began to be portrayed as something of a rogue state in the Western media. Finally, in May 1992 Ukraine signed the Lisbon Protocol, which marked Ukraine’s accession to the START I treaty (see Strategic Arms Reduction Talks). Subsequent negotiations, brokered by the United States, resulted in a trilateral statement (between the United States, Russia, and Ukraine) in January 1994, which outlined a timetable for disarmament and dealt with the financial and security issues that Ukraine had raised.
The interconnected issues of Crimea, Sevastopol[ii], and the Black Sea Fleet not only constituted Ukraine’s thorniest postindependence problem but also posed a significant threat to peace in the region. In 1954 the Russian S.F.S.R. had transferred the administration of Crimea to the Ukrainian S.S.R. However, it was the one region of Ukraine where ethnic Russians constituted a majority of the population. In 1991 Crimea was granted the status of an autonomous republic, and Crimeans supported the vote for Ukrainian independence (albeit by a small majority). But disenchantment with an independent Ukraine soon followed, and a movement for greater autonomy or even secession developed in the peninsula. The separatists were encouraged in their efforts by routine pronouncements by prominent Russian politicians and the Russian Duma that Crimea was Russian territory that never should have been part of Ukraine. The situation was complicated by the arrival of about 250,000 Crimean Tatars in the peninsula—returning to the historic homeland from which they had been deported at the end of World War II—starting in the late 1980s.
Tensions in the region increased in 1994: separatist leader Yury Meshkov was elected Crimean president in January, and a referendum calling for sovereignty was passed two months later. Meshkov proved to be an inept leader, however, and he quickly alienated his own supporters. By September he and the Crimean parliament were locked in a constitutional struggle. The parliament finally stripped Meshkov of his powers and elected a pro-Kyiv prime minister. In March 1995 Ukraine abolished the post of Crimean president and instituted direct political rule, though it granted Crimea significant economic concessions. The Crimean separatist movement collapsed.
The dispute between Russia and Ukraine over control of the Black Sea Fleet and Sevastopol, the Crimean port city where the fleet was based, was particularly acrimonious. Early in 1992 Ukraine laid claim to the entire fleet, which had been an important naval asset of the Soviet Union. Russia responded unequivocally that the fleet always had been and would remain Russia’s. A “war of decrees” over the issue continued until June 1992, when Kravchuk and Russian Pres. Boris Yeltsin agreed that the fleet would be administered jointly for a three-year period. Subsequently an agreement was reached to divide the fleet’s assets evenly, but after further negotiation Ukraine consented to allow Russia to acquire a majority share of the fleet in exchange for debt forgiveness. The question of basing rights was not resolved until a final agreement on the Black Sea Fleet was reached in 1997. It allowed Russia to lease the main port facilities of Sevastopol for 20 years. Shortly afterward, Ukraine and Russia signed the Treaty of Friendship, Cooperation, and Partnership (1997), which recognized Ukraine’s territorial sovereignty and existing borders (including Crimea) and regularized relations to some degree.
The turbulent relations between Ukraine and Russia in the post-Soviet period were likely inevitable, given that the independence of Ukraine was such a sudden, fundamental change. Russia had tremendous difficulty in perceiving—let alone accepting—Ukraine as an independent country: it viewed Ukraine as an integral part of the Russian realm and even considered Ukrainians to be virtually the same people as Russians. Consequently, Russia reacted to Ukraine’s departure more strongly than it did to the separation of the other Soviet republics. On the other hand, Ukraine was intensely aware of the fragility of its recent independence and extremely sensitive to any perceived encroachment on its sovereignty by Russia. Relations between the two countries continued to be volatile into the early 21st century. Ukraine’s dependence on Russia for fossil fuels was an issue of particular concern. For example, in 2006 Russia temporarily cut off its supply of natural gas to Ukraine after claiming that Ukraine had not paid its bills. Ukraine, however, maintained that the move was a reprisal for its pro-Western policies.
Ukraine’s relations with its other neighbours tended to be much more cordial. Relations with Hungary were from the outset friendly. Poland was supportive of Ukrainian independence as well, notwithstanding earlier centuries of acrimony. Ukraine also fostered a working relationship with several countries of the former Soviet Union by cofounding a loose subregional organization called GUAM (Georgia, Ukraine, Azerbaijan, Moldova; known as GUUAM from 1999 to 2005, when Uzbekistan was a member). Relations with Romania were complicated by that country’s claims to certain Ukrainian territories, including northern Bukovina and southern Bessarabia, as well as Zmiyinyy (Serpent) Island and its surrounding waters in the Black Sea. Belarus’s authoritarian political system and its proposed two-state union with Russia rendered close ties with Ukraine unlikely.
Ukraine’s relations with the United States started out very poorly. During a visit to Ukraine in the summer of 1991, U.S. Pres. George Bush [Bush 41] affronted many Ukrainians when he warned them against “suicidal” nationalism and urged them to remain within the U.S.S.R. When Ukraine gained independence later that year, Washington was extremely concerned about the new country’s large nuclear arsenal. Only after the resolution of the disarmament issue did significant ties begin to develop. Ukraine soon ranked as a major recipient of U.S. foreign assistance, and the two countries developed a strong political relationship.
Economic difficulties
Ukraine’s postindependence economic performance—in sharp contrast to its relatively successful efforts at state building and diplomacy—was markedly poor. The social dislocation brought about by economic “shock therapy” in Russia dampened the Ukrainian government’s desire for rapid change; it opted instead for a gradualist approach toward achieving a mixed economy. Economic decline followed, since Ukrainian industry was already suffering from the disruption of trade with former Soviet republics in the wake of the U.S.S.R.’s demise. Ukraine’s heavy dependence on foreign energy sources also strained the economy, particularly because Russia, Ukraine’s main supplier, moved to raise the previously subsidized price of fossil fuels to world levels. As a solid monetary policy had not been established, Ukraine experienced hyperinflation, which reached a rate of at least 4,735 percent in 1993. Meanwhile, corruption increased as political insiders grabbed state assets for themselves or took unfair advantage of low-interest loans available to industry and agriculture. A sustained attempt at economic reform came with the appointment of Leonid Kuchma as prime minister in October 1992. His efforts, however, were strongly opposed by a majority of parliamentarians and, to a degree, undermined by President Kravchuk himself. An exasperated Kuchma resigned in 1993.
Social developments
Postindependence society in Ukraine saw some positive developments. The media became much more open and vibrant, although those who were too openly critical of the administration were subject to harassment, notably during Kuchma’s presidency (1994–2005). Previous constraints on academic and intellectual life were lifted, resulting in a growing and diverse body of publications, and liberal arts and business schools began to emerge. There was substantial development in religious life, as the Ukrainian Orthodox and Ukrainian Catholic churches—as well as other denominations—were able to operate freely. In addition, a new generation of youth began to grow up without the ideological and intellectual constraints of Soviet society.
Relations with minority groups in the postindependence period were generally peaceful. The Jewish community experienced something of a renaissance, with the American-born chief rabbi of Kyiv, Yaakov Dov Bleich, playing an instrumental role in organizing synagogues, schools, and charitable activities. Moreover, the Ukrainian government openly pursued a positive relationship with the Jewish community. The Hungarians and Romanians in western Ukraine were afforded nationality rights, and the government made some efforts to assist the Tatars, tens of thousands of whom still resided abroad as a result of mass deportations in the 1940s. Unrest among the Tatars was limited in the postindependence period, in large measure because of the effective leadership of former dissident Mustafa Jemilev.
Ukraine’s large Russian minority found itself in an ambiguous situation in the postindependence years. As part of the dominant nationality within the U.S.S.R., it had maintained the preferred status of what some observers termed a “psychological majority” in Soviet Ukraine. In independent Ukraine, however, the status of Russians was less assured. Although granting Ukrainian Russians the full rights of citizenship was never an issue, many of them were frustrated that Russian was not recognized as the second official language of the country. This highly contentious matter was resolved to some degree in 2012, when a new law was passed that allowed regional authorities to confer official status upon minority languages. Moreover, the gradual Ukrainization of the school system has not been popular in regions of Ukraine with large Russian populations. The matter was further complicated by Russia’s vow to defend the rights of ethnic Russians in the so-called “near-abroad,” which includes Ukraine.
Postindependence Ukraine witnessed the growth of numerous social ills. Both street crime and organized crime increased, and Ukraine became a conduit for the international illegal drug trade. A rise in the number of drug addicts accompanied a worrisome growth in the number of people infected with HIV. The trafficking of Ukrainian women for the international sex trade also emerged as a serious concern—evidenced by the fact that Ukraine was the first former Soviet republic to host an office of La Strada International (a network of organizations that work to prevent human trafficking). Life expectancy fell, particularly for males, and occurrences of diseases considered long eradicated, such as cholera, were recorded. Many people—especially the elderly—were reduced to living in dire poverty, and many others sought work outside Ukraine, both legally and illegally, as migrant labourers.
Kuchma’s presidency
Parliamentary and presidential elections were held in Ukraine in 1994. In the first contest, candidates affiliated with the revived Communist Party emerged as the largest single group, winning approximately one-fifth of the seats. Factoring in the deputies of the Socialist and Agrarian parties, the latter of which drew its support from rural interests and farmers, the left now constituted a strong—although not united—bloc in the new parliament. In the presidential election the incumbent president, Kravchuk, was narrowly defeated by former prime minister Kuchma, who promised economic reform and better relations with Russia. The two contests seemed to reveal a political polarization between eastern and western Ukraine. Kuchma and the left received their greatest support from the more heavily industrialized and Russophone regions of eastern Ukraine, whereas Kravchuk did particularly well in western Ukraine, where Ukrainian speakers and national democrats predominated. Nevertheless, the minimal number of irregularities in the elections and the peaceful replacement of the president were widely interpreted as signs that democracy was taking root in Ukraine.
Leonid Kuchma, 2003.
Antônio Cruz/Agência Brasil
Once in office, Kuchma maintained many of his predecessor’s policies. Significantly, while seeking more cordial relations with Moscow, he did not reorient Ukraine’s foreign policy northward. Ukraine continued to participate in the CIS but in much the same manner as it had previously. Moreover, Kuchma maintained Ukraine’s pro-Western policies and aspirations. In 1994 Ukraine joined the Partnership for Peace Programme run by the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO); the country also established a “special partnership” with the organization in 1996. In 1995 Ukraine joined the Council of Europe.
Kuchma faced a major challenge in dealing with a strong parliamentary opposition, particularly in respect to economic reform. Ukraine managed to achieve macroeconomic stabilization by 1996, the year in which it introduced its long-awaited currency, the hryvnya. However, the economy continued to perform poorly through the end of the decade. Cumbersome bureaucratic procedures and unenforced economic legislation led business to be both overregulated and rife with corruption. In addition, the country was able to attract only a limited amount of foreign investment. The Russian economic crisis of 1998 negatively affected Ukraine’s economy as well. But in 1999 the introduction of tax-reform measures saw a growth in the number of small private businesses established or emerging from the country’s significant shadow economy. At the turn of the 21st century the legitimate economy began to grow.
In the 1998 parliamentary elections the Communist Party actually improved its showing. In the 1999 presidential election, however, Kuchma defeated Communist Party leader Petro Symonenko by a resounding margin. Politically, Kuchma had benefited from the splintering of the left among several candidates. He also had campaigned vigorously, using all the means available to him, particularly the media. Indeed, a strong bias in favour of Kuchma became evident in the television coverage of the election. International observers were critical of Kuchma’s handling of the media and some obvious electoral irregularities. His margin of victory, however, indicated that these factors alone had not determined the outcome of the vote.
The result of the 1999 election was significant in two respects. First, it represented a rejection of the communist past. Some observers remarked that it even constituted a second referendum on independence. Second, the vote did not split neatly along geographical lines, indicating that—for that moment at least—the east-west divide seen in the 1994 elections was not as important a factor in Ukrainian politics as many analysts had suggested.
During Kuchma’s second term, conflicts between right- and left-wing forces sometimes threatened political stability. Nevertheless, newly appointed prime minister Viktor Yushchenko shepherded economic reforms through the legislature. The economy grew steadily in the first years of the 21st century, but the political situation remained tense in Ukraine as it sought membership in NATO and the European Union (EU) while also pursuing closer relations with Russia—a delicate balancing act. In 2003 Ukraine accepted in principle a proposal to establish a “joint economic space” with Russia, Belarus, and Kazakhstan; however, Ukrainian-Russian relations were strained by
- Russian accusations of deteriorating conditions for the Russian minority in Ukraine, along with
- Ukrainian concerns over what it viewed to be Russian expansionist designs in Crimea.
Yushchenko became an opposition leader following his dismissal as prime minister in 2001. The following year, audio tapes allegedly revealed Kuchma’s approval of the sale of a radar system to Iraq, in violation of a United Nations Security Council resolution, and implicated him in the assassination of a dissident journalist in 2000. Opposition groups called for the impeachment of Kuchma, who denied the allegations.
The Orange Revolution and the Yushchenko presidency
The presidential election of 2004 brought Ukraine to the brink of disintegration and civil war. Cleared to seek a third term as president by the Constitutional Court, Kuchma instead endorsed the candidacy of Prime Minister Viktor Yanukovych, who was also strongly supported by Russian Pres. Vladimir Putin. Yushchenko—running on an anticorruption, anticronyism platform—emerged as the leading opposition candidate, but his campaign was prevented from visiting Yanukovych’s stronghold of Donetsk and other eastern cities. In September Yushchenko’s health began to fail, and medical tests later revealed he had suffered dioxin poisoning (allegedly carried out by the Ukrainian State Security Service), which left his face disfigured. In the first round of the presidential election, on October 31, Yushchenko and Yanukovych both won about two-fifths of the vote. In the runoff the following month, Yanukovych was declared the winner, though Yushchenko’s supporters
1. charged fraud and
2. staged mass protests that came to be known as the Orange Revolution.
Protestors clad in orange, Yushchenko’s campaign colour, took to the streets, and the country endured nearly two weeks of demonstrations. Yanukovych’s supporters in the east threatened to secede from Ukraine if the results were annulled. Nevertheless, on December 3 the Supreme Court ruled the election invalid and ordered a new runoff for December 26. Yushchenko subsequently defeated Yanukovych by garnering some 52 percent of the vote. Although Yanukovych challenged the validity of the results, Yushchenko was inaugurated on January 23, 2005.
Political turmoil occupied the first few years of Yushchenko’s presidency. His first cabinet served only until September 2005, when he dismissed all his ministers, including Prime Minister Yuliya Tymoshenko, a fellow leader of the Orange Revolution. The next prime minister, Yury Yekhanurov, stayed in office only until January 2006. Parliamentary elections early that year saw Yushchenko’s Our Ukraine party finish third, behind Yanukovych’s Party of Regions and the Yuliya Tymoshenko Bloc. When a proposed coalition of the so-called Orange parties in the parliament fell apart, Yushchenko was forced to accept his rival Yanukovych as prime minister. The ensuing power struggle between the president and the prime minister, whose political role had been enhanced by a constitutional reform that took effect in 2006, led Yushchenko to call for another round of parliamentary elections in 2007. Once again the president’s party finished behind both Yanukovych’s and Tymoshenko’s parties. This time, however, a coalition with the Yuliya Tymoshenko Bloc held together, allowing the pro-Western Orange parties to form a government with Tymoshenko as prime minister. As the government continued to balance the often conflicting goals of maintaining positive relations with Russia and gaining membership in the EU, dissent between Yushchenko and Tymoshenko contributed to the collapse of their coalition in September 2008. In October the president dissolved parliament. Parliamentary elections, at first scheduled for December, later were canceled, and Yushchenko’s and Tymoshenko’s parties agreed to form a new coalition, together with the smaller Lytvyn Bloc, headed by Volodymyr Lytvyn.
The Yanukovych presidency
The next presidential election, held on January 17, 2010, confirmed the political demise of President Yushchenko, who received only about 5 percent of the vote. The top two candidates, Yanukovych and Tymoshenko, garnered about 35 and 25 percent, respectively. Because neither had won a majority of votes, a runoff poll was held on February 7. The runoff results were split largely along regional lines, with most of western Ukraine supporting Tymoshenko and most of the east favouring Yanukovych. Winning 48.95 percent of the vote—a narrow lead over Tymoshenko’s 45.47 percent—Yanukovych took the presidency. Although international observers determined that the poll had been fair, Tymoshenko declared the results fraudulent and refused to recognize Yanukovych’s victory; she and her supporters boycotted the inauguration of Yanukovych on February 25. The following week Tymoshenko’s government was felled by a vote of no confidence and Mykola Azarov of the Party of Regions was installed as prime minister. President Yanukovych gained greater executive authority later in 2010 when the Constitutional Court overturned the 2006 reform that had enhanced the powers of the prime minister.
In April 2010, following a fractious parliamentary debate, Ukraine agreed to extend Russia’s lease of the port at Sevastopol, originally set to expire in 2017, until 2042. In exchange, Ukraine would receive a reduction in the price of Russian natural gas. The Ukrainian government further improved relations with Russia in June 2010, when it officially abandoned its goal of joining NATO—a pursuit Russia had opposed. As the Yanukovych administration continued its pivot towards Moscow, EU leaders expressed concern about the preservation of the rule of law in Ukraine.
In 2011 former prime minister Tymoshenko, the country’s most popular politician, was convicted of abuse of power in connection with a 2009 natural gas deal with Russia and given a seven-year prison sentence. In February 2012 Tymoshenko’s interior minister, Yuri Lutsenko, also was convicted of abuse of power and sentenced to four years in prison. Many observers believed both trials were politically motivated. When Ukraine cohosted the UEFA European Championship football (soccer) tournament in summer 2012, a number of EU countries registered their concern for Tymoshenko by boycotting the event.
In the parliamentary election in October 2012, the ruling Party of Regions emerged as the single largest bloc, with 185 seats. Tymoshenko’s Fatherland party claimed 101 seats, Vitali Klitschko’s Ukrainian Democratic Alliance for Reforms (UDAR) won 40 seats, and the ultranationalist Svoboda (“Freedom”) party had a surprisingly strong showing, winning 37 seats. Challenging the validity of the results, Tymoshenko embarked on a hunger strike. Although international observers called attention to irregularities in some contests, the European Parliament characterized the election as comparatively fair, and the main opposition parties accepted the official results. In December 2012 sitting Prime Minister Azarov formed a government with the support of Communist and independent deputies. In what was widely seen as an attempt to thaw relations with the EU, Yanukovych pardoned the imprisoned Lutsenko and ordered his release in April 2013.
The Maidan protest movement
Ukraine’s pro-European trajectory was abruptly halted in November 2013, when a planned association agreement with the EU was scuttled just days before it was scheduled to be signed. The accord would have more closely integrated political and economic ties between the EU and Ukraine, but Yanukovych bowed to intense pressure from Moscow. Street protests erupted in Kyiv, and Lutsenko and Klitschko emerged as the leaders of the largest demonstrations since the Orange Revolution. Police violently dispersed crowds in Kyiv’s Maidan Nezalezhnosti (“Independence Square”), and, as the protests continued into December, demonstrators occupied Kyiv’s city hall and called on Yanukovych to resign. Russia, in turn, offered to cut the price of natural gas and purchase $15 billion in Ukrainian bonds to prop up the country’s faltering economy.
Ukrainian protesters smash a statue of Vladimir Lenin in Kyiv's Maidan (Independence Square) in 2013.
Efrem Lukatsky/AP Images
As demonstrations gave way to rioting in January 2014, Yanukovych signed a series of laws restricting the right to protest, and hundreds of thousands took to the streets of Kyiv in response. Bloody clashes between police and protesters ensued, with dozens injured on each side. On January 22 two protesters were killed in skirmishes with police, and demonstrations soon spread to eastern Ukraine, a region that traditionally had supported Yanukovych and closer ties with Russia. Protesters occupied the justice ministry in Kyiv, and the parliament hastily repealed the anti-protest measures. As discussions continued between Yanukovych and opposition leaders, Azarov tendered his resignation as prime minister.
In February hundreds of protesters were released from jail as part of an amnesty deal that led to the evacuation of demonstrators from government buildings. The thaw in tensions was short-lived, however, as opposition parliamentarians were rebuffed in their attempts to limit the powers of the presidency, and the battle in the streets took a deadly turn. More than 20 were killed and hundreds were wounded when government forces attempted to retake the Maidan on February 18. The 25,000 protesters remaining in the square ringed their encampment with bonfires in an attempt to forestall another assault. Protesters in the western Ukrainian cities of Lviv and Ivano-Frankivsk seized government buildings, and EU officials threatened sanctions against Ukraine unless the Yanukovych administration took steps to de-escalate the violence. The proposed truce failed to materialize, and on February 20 violence in Kyiv escalated dramatically, with police and government security forces firing on crowds of protesters. Scores were killed, hundreds were injured, and EU leaders made good on their promise to enact sanctions against Ukraine. Central government control continued to erode in western Ukraine, as opposition forces occupied police stations and government offices in Lutsk, Uzhhorod, and Ternopil.
The bloodiest week in Ukraine’s post-Soviet history concluded on February 21 with an EU-brokered agreement between Yanukovych and opposition leaders that called for early elections and the formation of an interim unity government. The parliament responded by overwhelmingly approving the restoration of the 2004 constitution, thus reducing the power of the presidency. In subsequent votes, the parliament approved a measure granting full amnesty to protesters, fired internal affairs minister Vitaliy Zakharchenko for his role in ordering the crackdown on the Maidan, and decriminalized elements of the legal code under which Tymoshenko had been prosecuted. Yanukovych, his power base crumbling, fled the capital ahead of an impeachment vote that stripped him of his powers as president. Meanwhile, Tymoshenko, who had been released from prison, traveled to Kyiv, where she delivered an impassioned speech to the crowd assembled in the Maidan. Fatherland deputy leader Oleksandr Turchynov was appointed acting president, a move that Yanukovych decried as a coup d’état. On February 24 the interim government charged Yanukovych with mass murder in connection with the deaths of the Maidan protesters and issued a warrant for his arrest.
The Ukrainian economy, struggling prior to the Maidan protests, responded erratically to the shifting power situation, with the hryvnya sinking to historic lows. Credit agency Standard & Poor’s cut the country’s debt rating and downgraded its financial outlook, as the International Monetary Fund (IMF) sought to restore calm. The interim Ukrainian government installed Fatherland leader Arseniy Yatsenyuk as prime minister, and early presidential elections were scheduled for May 2014. Yanukovych resurfaced on February 28 in Rostov-na-Donu, Russia, and he delivered a defiant speech in Russian, insisting that he was still the rightful president of Ukraine.
The crisis in Crimea and eastern Ukraine
Russian invasion and annexation of Crimea
As pro-Russian protesters became increasingly assertive in Crimea, groups of armed men whose uniforms lacked any clear identifying marks surrounded the airports in Simferopol and Sevastopol. Masked gunmen occupied the Crimean parliament building and raised a Russian flag, as pro-Russian lawmakers dismissed the sitting government and installed Sergey Aksyonov, the leader of the Russian Unity Party, as Crimea’s prime minister. Voice and data links between Crimea and Ukraine were severed, and Russian authorities acknowledged that they had moved troops into the region. Turchynov criticized the action as a provocation and a violation of Ukrainian sovereignty, while Russian Pres. Vladimir Putin characterized it as an effort to protect Russian citizens and military assets in Crimea. Aksyonov declared that he, and not the government in Kyiv, was in command of Ukrainian police and military forces in Crimea.
Unidentified soldiers accompanied by Russian military vehicles patrolling Sevastopol, [southwestern tip of Crimea,] Ukraine, on March 1, 2014, a few weeks before Russia annexed Crimea and the city.
Andrew Lubimov/AP Images
On March 6 the Crimean parliament voted to secede from Ukraine and join the Russian Federation, with a public referendum on the matter scheduled for March 16, 2014. The move was hailed by Russia and broadly condemned in the West. Meanwhile, Yatsenyuk affirmed Kyiv’s position that Crimea was an integral part of Ukraine. On the day of the referendum, observers noted numerous irregularities in the voting process, including the presence of armed men at polling stations, and the result was an overwhelming 97 percent in favour of joining Russia. The interim government in Kyiv rejected the result, and the United States and the EU imposed asset freezes and travel bans on numerous Russian officials and members of the Crimean parliament. On March 18 Putin met with Aksyonov and other regional representatives and signed a treaty incorporating Crimea into the Russian Federation. Western governments protested the move. Within hours of the treaty’s signing, a Ukrainian soldier was killed when masked gunmen stormed a Ukrainian military base outside Simferopol. Russian troops moved to occupy bases throughout the peninsula, including Ukrainian naval headquarters in Sevastopol, as Ukraine initiated the evacuation of some 25,000 military personnel and their families from Crimea. On March 21 after the ratification of the annexation treaty by the Russian parliament, Putin signed a law formally integrating Crimea into Russia.
As international attention remained focused on Crimea, Yatsenyuk negotiated with the IMF to craft a bailout package that would address Ukraine’s $35 billion in unmet financial obligations. He also met with EU officials in Brussels, and on March 21 Yatsenyuk signed a portion of the association pact that had been rejected by Yanukovych in November 2013. The IMF ultimately proposed an $18 billion loan package that was contingent on Ukraine’s adoption of a range of austerity measures that included devaluation of the hryvnya and curbs on state subsidies that reduced the price of natural gas to consumers.
Russia continued to solidify its hold on Crimea, and it abrogated the 2010 treaty that had extended its lease on the port of Sevastopol in exchange for a discount on natural gas. The price Russia charged Ukraine for natural gas skyrocketed some 80 percent in a matter of weeks. While Russia openly exerted economic pressure on the interim government in Kyiv, Russian officials publicly stated that they had no additional designs on Ukrainian territory. In early April, however, a NATO press briefing revealed the presence of an estimated 40,000 Russian troops, massed in a state of high readiness, just across Ukraine’s border. Subsequently, heavily armed pro-Russian gunmen stormed government buildings in the eastern Ukrainian cities of Donetsk, Luhansk, Horlivka, and Kramatorsk. In Kharkiv a group of ostensibly local gunmen mistakenly seized an opera house, believing it to be city hall. As was the case in Crimea, a number of these takeovers were executed by men with Russian equipment, in uniforms bearing no insignia, acting with military precision. In the city of Slov’yansk in the Donets Basin, a gun battle erupted as pro-Russian militiamen occupied buildings and established roadblocks.
Turchynov imposed a deadline on those occupying the buildings, offering them immunity from prosecution if they surrendered but threatening a military response if they did not. The deadline passed without incident, the occupiers consolidated their gains, and Turchynov called on the United Nations to dispatch peacekeeping forces to eastern Ukraine to restore order. Meanwhile, he signaled his support for one of the key demands of the pro-Russian camp—a popular referendum on the conversion of Ukraine into a federation, a change that would convey greater autonomy at the regional level. On April 15 the Ukrainian military successfully retook the airfield at Kramatorsk, but the following day a broader effort to reassert control in Slov’yansk went sharply awry when Ukrainian troops surrendered six armoured personnel carriers to pro-Russian militiamen. As emergency talks between Ukraine, the United States, the EU, and Russia began in Geneva, Ukrainian troops in Mariupol repelled an assault by pro-Russian gunmen that left several militiamen dead.
Although all parties at Geneva agreed to work to defuse the conflict in eastern Ukraine, Russia commenced military maneuvers on its side of the border, and pro-Russian militants expanded their zone of control, seizing additional government buildings and establishing armed checkpoints. In late April Volodymyr Rybak, a Horlivka city council representative and a member of Tymoshenko’s Fatherland party, was kidnapped and killed by a pro-Russian militia. Subsequently, dozens would be abducted and held by pro-Russian forces, including eight members of an Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) monitoring mission, numerous Ukrainian and Western journalists, and several members of Ukrainian police and security services. The U.S. and the EU unveiled a fresh round of sanctions against Russia, and Kharkiv mayor Gennady Kernes, a member of Yanukovych’s Party of Regions who had reversed his pro-Moscow course and declared his support for a united Ukraine, was seriously wounded by a sniper. On May 2 the Ukrainian government restarted its offensive against pro-Russian forces in Slov’yansk. Although two helicopters were lost to hostile fire, Turchynov reported that many separatists had been killed or arrested. That same day, violence erupted in Odessa, a city that had been relatively unscathed until that point, and dozens of pro-Russian demonstrators were killed when the building they occupied caught fire.
On May 9 Putin celebrated Victory Day, a holiday that commemorates the defeat of Nazi Germany in World War II, with a trip to Crimea and a review of Russia’s Black Sea Fleet. Days before Putin’s visit, the Council for Civil Society and Human Rights, a Kremlin advisory body, had released a cautionary report about Crimea that sharply contradicted the officially published results of the March 16 independence referendum. Actual voter turnout was estimated to have been between 30 and 50 percent, with just over half of those casting ballots choosing annexation by Russia. As self-declared separatist governments in Luhansk and Donetsk prepared to stage their own referenda on independence, Ukrainian security forces continued to contest territory with pro-Russian militias, and a particularly bloody clash in Mariupol left as many as 20 dead. Those referenda, held in separatist-controlled cities on May 11, were dismissed by Kyiv as “a farce” and were widely criticized throughout the West. Widespread irregularities were observed: masked gunmen directly supervised polls, voters casting multiple ballots were commonplace, and Ukrainian police reportedly seized 100,000 pre-completed “yes” ballots from armed separatists outside Slov’yansk. While stopping short of recognizing the results of the referenda, which overwhelmingly favoured independence, Putin said that he respected the will of the voters, even as the Kremlin called for negotiations. The EU responded by expanding its sanctions against Russian individuals and companies.
The Poroshenko administration
Skirmishes between separatist militias and government forces continued in the east, while the remainder of the country prepared for presidential elections on May 25 [2014]. Although voting was seriously disrupted in Luhansk and Donetsk, with pro-Russian gunmen occupying polling stations and seizing ballot boxes, turnout elsewhere in the country was strong. Ukrainian billionaire Petro Poroshenko won in a landslide, easily topping the 50 percent mark necessary to secure a victory in the first round of polling. Tymoshenko finished a distant second, with 13 percent of the vote, while candidates from the ultranationalist Svoboda and Right Sector parties received barely 1 percent. In the days following the election, intense fighting resumed in eastern Ukraine. Dozens of pro-Russian separatists were killed in a battle over Donetsk’s international airport, and a Ukrainian military helicopter was shot down outside Slov’yansk, killing all 14 people aboard.
Poroshenko was sworn in as president on June 7, and he immediately set forth a proposal to restore peace in separatist-controlled regions. Fighting continued, however, and Russia was again accused of directly supporting the rebels when a trio of unidentified Soviet-era tanks appeared in Ukrainian towns near the Russian border. On June 14, one day after government forces reclaimed the city of Mariupol, the Ukrainian army suffered its largest single-day loss of life to that point, when rebels shot down a transport plane carrying 49 people as it attempted to land in Luhansk. Poroshenko called a halt to military operations in the east, offering a temporary truce, as well as amnesty to separatists who were willing to lay down their arms. He dispatched former president Kuchma to negotiate with rebel leaders, and they indicated their acceptance of the proposed cease-fire. Putin, citing a desire to help normalize the situation in eastern Ukraine, rescinded an order—issued before the annexation of Crimea—that authorized the use of Russian troops on Ukrainian soil. On June 27[2014], amid strenuous Russian objections, Poroshenko signed the long-delayed association agreement with the EU, pledging closer ties with Europe.
In the following weeks the Ukrainian military recaptured the cities of Slov’yansk and Kramatorsk, which suggested that government forces were making significant headway against the rebels. Separatist militias began to deploy increasingly sophisticated weapons systems, however, and at least 19 Ukrainian soldiers were killed and scores were wounded during one attack in eastern Ukraine when their position was hit by a rocket artillery barrage. As the Ukrainian military became more assertive with its use of attack aircraft, pro-Russian forces intensified their air-defense campaign. On July 14 a Ukrainian transport plane was shot down at an altitude of more than 20,000 feet (6,100 metres), a range far beyond the capabilities of the portable air-defense systems that separatists had used previously. On July 16 a Ukrainian fighter jet was shot down over the Donetsk region, about 12 miles (20 km) from the Russian border. Ukrainian officials blamed both attacks on the Russian military, whom they alleged were taking an active role in the fighting.
Pro-Russian separatist leader Igor Girkin (byname Igor Strelkov) holding a media briefing on July 28, 2014, in the rebel stronghold of Donetsk, Ukraine.
Dmitry Lovetsky/AP Images
Hear the Dutch Safety Board's investigation about the shooting down of Malaysia Airlines flight MH17 on July 17, 2014
A video released by the Dutch Safety Board in October 2015 summarizing the board's investigation of the shooting down of Malaysia Airlines flight MH17 on July 17, 2014.
© CCTV America (A Britannica Publishing Partner)See all videos for this article
The conflict’s civilian death toll jumped dramatically on July 17, when a Malaysia Airlines 777 carrying 298 people crashed in the Donetsk region. Both Ukrainian and pro-Russian forces were quick to deny responsibility for any role in the downing of the jet, which U.S. intelligence analysts confirmed was brought down by a surface-to-air missile. Investigators and recovery workers found their efforts hampered by the pro-Russian forces who controlled the crash site, and days passed before the majority of the bodies could be collected.
Emergency workers examining the charred debris at the crash site of Malaysia Airlines flight 17, near the village of Hrabove, eastern Ukraine, July 20, 2014.
Vadim Ghirda/AP/Shutterstock.com
As international attention focused on the crash, the government in Kyiv ground to a standstill. Svoboda and UDAR withdrew their support from the ruling coalition, and Prime Minister Arseniy Yatsenyuk, frustrated at the pace of legislative action, announced his resignation. Parliament ultimately rejected Yatsenyuk’s resignation after agreeing to his proposed budget amendments, but Poroshenko proceeded with a call for early elections to be held in October 2014. In the east, the area under separatist control continued to recede, as the Ukrainian military steadily advanced on the rebel strongholds of Donetsk and Luhansk. Although Russia continued to deny involvement in the conflict, in August Moscow confirmed that a squad of Russian paratroopers had been captured while inside Ukraine. After Ukrainian authorities released video interviews of the prisoners, Russian military officials stated that the soldiers had accidentally crossed the border.
Ukrainian government troops experienced a sharp reversal of fortunes in late August, when rebel forces opened a new front in the south, taking the city of Novoazovs’k and threatening the key port of Mariupol. Poroshenko flatly declared that Russian forces had entered Ukraine, and NATO analysts estimated that more than 1,000 Russian troops were actively participating in the conflict. On September 5 the governments of Ukraine and Russia met with separatist leaders in Minsk, Belarus, and agreed to a cease-fire that temporarily slowed, but did not stop, the violence. With an eye on the future, Poroshenko proposed a series of political and economic reforms that were designed to prepare Ukraine to apply for EU membership in 2020. Poroshenko’s mandate received approval from voters on October 26[ 2014], when pro-Western parties triumphed in snap parliamentary elections.
A bar provides the only light in a neighbourhood of Mirny, Ukraine, after months of heavy fighting between government forces and rebels led to electricity shortages in the Luhansk region in October 2014.
Sergey Ponomarev—The New York Times/Redux
Vladimir Putin, Alexander Lukashenko, and Petro Poroshenko
Belarusian Pres. Alexander Lukashenko (centre) hosting a meeting between Russian Pres. Vladimir Putin (left) and Ukrainian Pres. Petro Poroshenko (right) in Minsk, Belarus, in an effort to end the fighting in eastern Ukraine, August 26, 2014.
Alexander Zemlianichenko/AP Images
On November 2 separatists held local elections in Donetsk and Luhansk in violation of the Minsk cease-fire agreement. Ukrainian and Western authorities dismissed the results, which predictably favoured separatist candidates, and, although Russia initially stated that it would recognize the elections, it later walked back those comments, saying that it would “respect” them instead. Poroshenko responded by vowing to rescind an agreement that would have granted additional autonomy to Donetsk and Luhansk. By year’s end, fighting had reached its previous levels. In January 2015 the United Nations estimated that more than 5,000 people had been killed since the beginning of hostilities. By that point the cease-fire agreement had been largely discarded by both sides. Although the Russian economy had been pushed into recession by a combination of Western sanctions and low oil prices, advanced Russian military equipment continued to appear in eastern Ukraine, as a separatist offensive pushed back government forces. In late January rebels occupied the fiercely contested Donetsk airport—little more than a ruin after months of heavy fighting—and they intensified efforts to capture the government-held town of Debaltseve. Hundreds were killed in the shelling of civilian areas in the conflict zone, including at least 30 in a separatist rocket attack on Mariupol, and world leaders pressed for a diplomatic solution to the crisis. [Mariupol lies along the estuary of the Kalmius and Kalchik rivers, 6 miles (10 km) from the Sea of Azov.]
On February 12, 2015, the leaders of Ukraine, Russia, France, and Germany agreed on a 12-point peace plan that proposed, among other things, the cessation of fighting, the withdrawal of heavy weapons, the release of prisoners, and the removal of foreign troops from Ukrainian territory. The tenuous peace held, and heavy weapons were pulled back by both sides in early September 2015. Frequent violations of the truce left over 9,000 dead and more than 20,000 wounded by year’s end, however. Citing research from Russian human rights groups, Ukrainian authorities estimated that over 2,000 Russian troops had been killed since the beginning of fighting in April 2014. Russian officials continued to deny any involvement in the conflict, and in May 2015 Putin signed a decree banning the release of information about the deaths of Russian soldiers during “special operations.”
World leaders meeting in Minsk, Belarus, to discuss the terms of a cease-fire in the conflict in eastern Ukraine, February 11, 2015. From left to right: Belarusian Pres. Alyaksandr Lukashenka, Russian Pres. Vladimir Putin, German Chancellor Angela Merkel, French Pres. François Hollande, and Ukrainian Pres. Petro Poroshenko.
Alexander Zemlianichenko, Pool/AP Images
As the situation in the east settled into a frozen conflict, Ukrainians grew impatient with the pace of political and economic reform. Although the Poroshenko administration had promised transparency and a renewed effort to stamp out endemic corruption, it could claim few real successes. In May 2015 Poroshenko tapped former Georgian president Mikheil Saakashvili to serve as governor of the Odessa region, but Saakashvili soon encountered resistance from Kyiv as a tug-of-war developed between anti-corruption crusaders and politicians aligned with the country’s oligarchs. Prime Minister Arseniy Yatsenyuk narrowly survived a vote of no confidence in February 2016, and he resigned in April of that year. Poroshenko quickly moved to install his ally Volodymyr Groysman as prime minister, but he was dogged by revelations about his use of offshore tax shelters during his tenure as president. A leak of documents from the Panamanian law firm Mossack Fonseca unveiled a money-laundering and tax-evasion operation of breathtaking scope, implicating dozens of public figures and politicians from around the globe. Poroshenko denied any wrongdoing and stated that he had fully complied with the law.
Poroshenko’s public approval rating sagged into the single digits approaching the 2019 presidential election, but a pair of events in late 2018 boosted his popularity. In November 2018 Russian naval vessels in the Kerch Strait fired on Ukrainian ships and seized both the ships and their crews. Poroshenko declared martial law in 10 regions, the first time such a step had been taken since Ukraine’s independence from the Soviet Union. Ukraine also appealed to the United Nations, and the General Assembly voted in favour of a resolution that called on Russia to withdraw its forces from Crimea and to end its occupation of Ukrainian territory. Russia ignored the resolution and continued to expand its military presence in Crimea, but the clash seemed to legitimize Poroshenko’s reelection campaign slogan, “Army, language, faith.”
The third of those pillars would be the focus of Poroshenko’s major pre-election policy initiative—namely, the creation of an independent Ukrainian Orthodox Church. The Orthodox churches of Ukraine had been under the jurisdiction of the Moscow Patriarchate since the 17th century, but in December 2018 Poroshenko and Orthodox leaders announced a break with Moscow. Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew I formally granted the Ukrainian Orthodox Church autocephalous (independent) status in January 2019; by this point, the Russian Orthodox Church had already severed ties with Constantinople and the ecumenical patriarchate in protest.
The election of Volodymyr Zelensky
In spite of Poroshenko’s efforts to direct the public conversation in the months leading to the March 2019 presidential election, official corruption and the economy remained voters’ key concerns. The race had initially appeared to be a replay of the 2014 contest between Poroshenko and Tymoshenko, but the candidacy of television personality and political novice Volodymyr Zelensky shattered the established order. Zelensky had portrayed the president of Ukraine in a popular situation comedy, and he leveraged his massive online following into a serious campaign against official corruption.
Volodymyr Zelensky, 2019.
Sergei Chuzavkov—SOPA Images/Shutterstock.com
In the first round of polling on March 31, 2019, Zelensky won over 30 percent of the vote, and Poroshenko finished second with 16 percent. The second round was held on April 21, and Zelensky crushed the incumbent in a landslide, capturing more than 73 percent of the vote. Poroshenko’s concession speech was marked with a promise that his political career was not yet over, while Zelensky vowed that his first goal as president would be to achieve a lasting peace in war-torn eastern Ukraine. Zelensky took office on May 20, 2019, and used his inauguration speech to announce the dissolution of parliament and the triggering of snap legislative elections. Those elections, held on July 21 [2019], delivered an absolute parliamentary majority to Zelensky’s Servant of the People party.
This confirmation of Zelensky’s mandate allowed him to promote a peace settlement that would see Ukrainian forces and Russian-backed insurgents withdraw from the so-called “contact line” in eastern Ukraine. Zelensky’s opponents characterized the move as a capitulation that would do nothing but legitimize Russian aggression in the Donets Basin and Crimea, but he retained widespread support from a war-weary public. While Zelensky endeavoured to focus his months-old administration on Ukraine’s foreign and domestic challenges, he soon found himself drawn into the following political scandal in the United States.
Some $400 million in military aid for Ukraine had been approved by the U.S. Congress, but U.S. Pres. Donald Trump put a hold on the funds prior to a July 25, 2019, phone call with Zelensky. During that call, Trump urged Zelensky to investigate the son of a political opponent, Democratic U.S. presidential candidate Joe Biden, who had served on the board of one of Ukraine’s largest natural gas companies. Over a month later the military aid was finally released, but, by that point, congressional Democrats were investigating Trump’s alleged attempt to pressure Ukraine. That investigation eventually served as the basis for an impeachment inquiry against Trump that was launched on September 24, 2019.
[Here ends the long excerpt from Britannica.com. -FNC]
Neo-Nazism
From Wikipedia we find these assertions.
[Oddly, there is not a
selection for Neo-Nazism in Ukraine. Is this an instance of Whitewashing
Neo-Nazism? –FNC]
Neo-Nazism comprises the post–World War II militant, social, and political movements that seek to revive and reinstate Nazi ideology. Neo-Nazis employ their ideology to promote hatred and white supremacy, attack racial and ethnic minorities (which include antisemitism and Islamophobia), and in some cases to create a fascist state.[1][2]
Neo-Nazism is a global phenomenon, with organized representation in many countries and international networks. It borrows elements from Nazi doctrine, including antisemitism, ultranationalism, racism, xenophobia, ableism, homophobia, anti-Romanyism, anti-communism, and creating a "Fourth Reich". Holocaust denial is common in neo-Nazi circles.
The Azov Regiment