Introduction

On March 10, GA hosted a very special Student Insight Night. This was a collaboration with ABBA, the Azov Black Baltic Adriatic Seas Student Organisation, which represents students from countries surrounding those seas. ABBA president Anna Leshchii started the event by presenting ABBA, explaining what it does, and explaining its mission. 

Anna then presented with Yde Bosma, a student at the Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, on Soviet mosaics and monuments in Ukraine. Yde has lived in Ukraine for five years and has been writing his thesis on nationalism in Ukraine since 2014. 

The presentation addressed Soviet iconography as Ukraine seeks to move away from the Soviet past. This is particularly crucial with the Russian full-scale invasion of Ukraine and the Russian state invoking Soviet propaganda to justify its war effort and erasure of Ukrainian national identity. 

Presentation

The presentation began with Yde explaining the significance of art, monuments, and mosaics. He discussed their symbolism and importance in the past. He also discussed how the Soviet Union appropriated artists from Ukraine (and other Soviet republics) and utilised their talents for Soviet propaganda. 

Their first case study was the Motherland Statue in Kyiv, a statue of a female warrior with a shield in one hand and a sword in the other. The statue was meant to honour the Ukrainians that fought and died in the Second World War as part of the Red Army against the Nazis. In 2023, the hammer and sickle, which was previously there, was replaced by the Ukrainian trident due to the full-scale invasion of Ukraine by Russia. 

Anna also mentioned a story in Ukraine in which residents had glued a moustache and eyebrows to a Lenin statue, making the statue look closer to Taras Shevchenko, a prominent 19th-century Ukrainian poet. 

They discussed the three approaches that typically encapsulate the discussion around monuments. Firstly, the Soviet Union is part of Ukraine’s history, not necessarily an occupier but another era for Ukraine. They explained how this approach neglects the Soviets’ deliberate efforts to suppress Ukrainian culture and identity.

The second approach seeks to emphasise national identity and security. Ukraine would promote its own artists and remove monuments linked to the Soviet Union and those used in Russian propaganda. This approach is the most popular in countries such as the Baltic States and Poland. 

The third approach focuses on the preservation of statues and mosaics, intending to decolonise their meaning and provide context and education to them and their history. However, it also acknowledges that not everything can be contextualised, and some of it should be removed. 

Discussion (Part 1)

We then had a lively discussion, during which audience members asked questions and discussed the topic. The first question was whether Ukrainian artworks were taken outside of Ukraine. The speakers mentioned how the works of Maria Prymachenko were taken to Sweden and certain university exchange programs. 

There was also discussion regarding monuments to specifically Ukrainians without Russian influence and a memorial of a Ukrainian soldier executed by the Russians, holding a cigarette in his hand and saying “Glory to Ukraine” before his execution.

Then there was discussion on views in Ukraine about the role of Ukrainian soldiers in WW2 and the debate between honouring the fight against fascism while acknowledging the oppression of the Soviet Union. 

An audience member asked whether there were also the efforts of Russia to utilise these monuments to promote Russian propaganda and work to appropriate them to commemorate their current war effort in captured territories. In response a Ukrainian audience member from Donetsk brought up the example of how the Russians feed propaganda to children and use these monuments to promote Russian nationalism.

There was also a discussion on the role of power and the framing of monuments, such as whether the monument portrays strength or care, whether soldiers with guns are depicted versus those with them protecting children, and so on. 

Discussion (Part 2) 

After a short break, the discussion continued. Spanish monuments to Franco were brought up as a potential example of how to address the historical memory. However, there was disagreement regarding this as it can still be used for propaganda, especially given that there is an active invasion at the moment. 

There was also discussion regarding the mosaic underneath the Motherland statue. One perspective was that it should stay because it is symbolic, with the mosaic representing the past and being buried. 

There was also a discussion regarding generational gaps. Anna shared that in her experience, there was Soviet nostalgia among the older generation that doesn’t really exist anymore. Yde said that in his experience, those who grew up in the dying days of the Soviet Union and its aftermath grew up in a very chaotic time, and they largely became and stayed apolitical. 

There was also a comparison to the Baltics, with Ukraine taking a more neutral position as opposed to the Baltics, who took a very hardline position against Soviet monuments and portrayed Russia as the enemy very early on. 

Finally, there was a discussion regarding a monument to Ukrainian soldiers near the Motherland Statue and whether it was about peace or power. The hammer and sickle and the practicality of removing Soviet memorabilia from smaller everyday infrastructure and less grand statues, such as bridges, was also discussed. 

Then, there was a discussion that made a comparison to Dutch history and the destruction of Catholic iconography. The perspective discussed how destroying these Catholic icons and Protestantism among the political class helped forge Dutch culture and identity. 

European Identity

The discussion ended with the crowd breaking into groups to discuss how Ukraine is using the EU and European identity to distance itself from Russia. There were a number of responses. One group discussed shared values and the logistics of Ukraine joining the EU. The Copenhagen Criteria were also discussed, and it was asked whether revising them so Ukraine could join would be good. 

There was also a discussion about the EU giving Ukraine an alternative due to its history being so tied to Russia and Russian imperialism. The EU provides Ukraine with an alternative to look to and gives Ukraine an impetus to remove corruption and further democratise, among other positive reforms.

The third group brought up the move from the Orthodox Christmas to the more Western Christmas, symbolising a cultural shift. There was also a comparison to Georgia, another country seeking to enter the EU and shifting toward a more Westernised culture.

Finally, cultural and social values were brought up. The example of a pride parade in Kyiv being held was used to contrast with Russia’s cultural and social norms. 

Conclusion

The event ended with a thank-you to the audience, a quick promotion of GA and what we do, and some nice discussions afterwards regarding the topic, GA, ABBA, and other events in International Relations. 

We want to thank Anna Leshchii and Yde Bosma for an excellent presentation, everyone who attended the great discussion, and ABBA for helping with this fantastic collaboration.