The history of Zaporizhzhia, not only as a city, but as a giant region of strength and freedom, is since the Rus’ period a specifically Ukrainian history; and not only in the military or political sense, but also in terms of culture and language. Hundreds, if not thousands, of words that exist only in the Ukrainian language, as well as names and surnames, are classified as words of Cossack origin. And the Cossacks are inextricably linked to Zaporizhzhia, where there is now a nature reserve that epitomizes the heart of the Ukrainian Cossacks, the island of Khortytsia.
Modern Russian propaganda in its broadest sense, including the Soviet one, has created many myths about the Zaporizhzhia Cossacks. But the purpose of this myth-making was not to glorify or even recognize the Cossacks as an integral part of Ukrainian history. It was quite the opposite. The aim was to humiliate the Cossacks as a socio-political force in order to justify their destruction in the mid-18th century.
In order to find out how these narratives affect the modern perception of the region’s history, as well as to identify mechanisms to counter Russian disinformation, a public discussion was initiated under the following title: Manipulating the Past: Do Russian Propaganda Myths about Zaporizhzhia and the Region Live on Today? Participants of the discussion included UCMC experts, historians, journalists and regional authorities, who noted many aspects of pro-Russian narratives that Moscow has been spreading for several centuries.
The pro-Moscow narratives harmful to the Ukrainian identity in Zaporizhzhia have both typical features for most of the other regions studied and some unique myths. Among the typical myths is the idea of the decisive role of Russia in the development of the region and its economy in the past. Moreover, local residents often voice the myth of the crucial importance of imperial leaders: Catherine II and Grigory Potemkin, while the real builders of the region remain forgotten. And among regional peculiarities, there is a narrative that even in the modern period, Zaporizhzhia being an integral part of independent Ukraine, most of the population and economy of the region were oriented toward the Russian market and sold their agricultural products there.
The myth of Moscow’s decisive role in the industrialization of Zaporizhzhia is refuted by the facts. Indeed, in the early twentieth century, large German Mennonite firms such as Koop and Lepp & Wallmann began operating. Long before the emergence of the USSR, which locals often consider to be the main founder of the city, the construction of the Kichkas Bridge united Mennonite villages, which made it possible to expand the production of agricultural machinery. Well-known automobile production, in particular, developed at factories nationalized by the USSR. The Dnipro hydroelectric power plant had its designs developed before 1917 and implemented by engineers of the old generation. Thus, the main trends in the development of Zaporizhzhia as an industrial center on both banks of the Dnipro were laid down in the late nineteenth century. And the first and last major “communist construction project” was Dniprobud, which used free contracting of labor. Later, there was only “socialist serfdom.”
At the beginning of the discussion, Ms. Tetyana Kolosova, head of the UCMC press center, noted that one of the most persistent Russian myths is about the “Novo-Russian” past of the South of Ukraine.
“The myth that this territory was allegedly uninhabited, developed by the Russian empire is part of the colonial discourse that has been imposed for decades. And it is still alive because it is repeated at all levels – from school textbooks to television series,” she emphasized.
Ms. Kolosova also added that European maps, which also show Ukrainian place names and deepen the history of Ukraine, are becoming an important source that refutes the pro-Moscow claim that there was no civilization in the Ukrainian south before the Russians. “Ukraine is the land of the Cossacks” is a vivid definition by seventeenth- and eighteenth-century cartographers that also refutes Moscow’s “one nation” narrative quite well.
Mr. Ihor Stambol, UCMC press center coordinator and project participant, noted that the complexity of Zaporizhzhia research lies in the established historiographical tradition of tracing the city’s history back to the Oleksandrivska fortress founded by the Muscovites. However, this Russian-oriented narrative actually excludes a lot of toponymic facts and historical periods. In particular, the island of Khortytsia is very important and significant for the history of Ukrainians, as it is directly related to the theme of Kyivan Rus and the Cossacks. In addition, as Mr. Stambol noted, these phenomena of Ukrainian history fit Zaporizhzhia so seamlessly into Ukrainian identity and tradition that we can only wonder what the Muscovites expect when they try to claim this region.
The myth about the decisive role of the Muscovian fortress as the main foundation of the city is refuted by the presence of previous settlements and infrastructure. The center of the modern city of Zaporizhzhia, now called Voznesenivka, and before that Neshkrebivka, after a Cossack settlement, was settled by Cossack winterers more than half a century before Catherine II. Oleksandrivsk (the old name was Zaporizhzhia) emerged within the boundaries of the Oleksandrivska fortress, the Oleksandrivsk Fuhrstaat, which was inhabited by local Ukrainians who used their own customary law and were proclaimed “founders of the city,” which was documented. The Moscow military outpost could not have formed the basis of the population of Oleksandrivsk, as evidenced by the presence of a wooden Cossack church on its territory. At that time, communities developed around churches, and in Oleksandrivsk, Ukrainians formed the basis of the community.
Ms. Inessa Atamanchuk, a journalist with the Zaporizhzhia-based news outlet MIG, drew attention to the repetition of rhetorical clichés that were created in Soviet times.
“Already then there was a clear line: Zaporizhzhia was an industrial center built thanks to the “friendship of nations” and the “titanic work of the Soviet people.” But the place of Ukrainian culture was marginalized. It’s as if it never existed here.” Ms. Atamanchuk noted that this narrative has been transformed in modern Russian propaganda: now it justifies military aggression by saying that Russia is allegedly retaking what is its own by right.
Ms. Atamanchuk believes that the Cossack village of Voznesenivka, which was located in the heart of the modern city of Zaporizhzhia, is a very important factor in the discussion about the beginning of the city’s history. The Cossack surnames of Voznesenivka’s residents: Karmaz’, Kaptsiukh, Artemenko, and others. It is their ancestors who should be considered the founders of the town, as opposed to the widespread myths about Catherine II and Potemkin.
According to Ms. Natalia Zvorygina, editor-in-chief at Zaporiz’ka Pravda, the lack of a critical view of history is a direct path to vulnerability to manipulation. After all, the Cossacks merged into the urban history of Zaporizhzhia, shaped its culture and certain features of its worldview. Later, this was almost forgotten during the assimilationist policy of the USSR, but it left a certain imprint on the descendants.
“Propaganda works when people don’t have the tools to analyze it. If we don’t talk about the true history of our region, if we don’t form a culture of memory, we leave the field open to other people’s interpretations,” she emphasized. The journalist added that a big problem in the region was the complete dominance of Russian television channels and other media in the pre-war period. It was very difficult for Ukrainian journalists to find a way to the viewer, and thus the pro-Ukrainian view of history and the present was bypassed by the majority of the population.
In addition, Ms. Zvorygina emphasized that Zaporizhzhia region, due to its industrial development, is highly Russified. This policy of Moscow was connected not only with the dominance in culture and education, but also with direct assimilation processes, as workers from distant regions of the modern Russian Federation were massively sent to Zaporizhzhia enterprises.
Mr. Pavlo Kravchuk, chief specialist of the Department of Culture and Tourism of Zaporizhzhia City Council, pointed out that historical fakes affect not only the perception of the past, but also the support or rejection of current events. “The spread of the image of great Russia liberating the fraternal people is based on a false history. And we see how it is used to justify the war.” In addition, the expert explained that the position that the history of the city began with the Oleksandrivska fortress was largely supported by local researchers during the Soviet era. Thus, a local false tradition was formed, from which it is very difficult to wean the local population.
And it is the research of Mr. Pavlo Kravchuk that shows that the first inhabitants and “founding fathers” of the city of Oleksandrivsk were Ukrainians. He found in the archives that according to the proceedings, when the imperial authorities in the nineteenth century pressured the city administration and demanded that the land property be organized according to the laws of the empire, the city authorities replied that there were land plots that belonged to the founders of the city. And among these founders of the city, who were recognized under customary law, there were neither Catherine II nor Potemkin. The founders were immigrants from the historical regions of Ukraine with Ukrainian surnames who brought to the city “zaimka,” a norm of customary law regulation of land relations, when the first to occupy a territory has the right to own it. The city hall administration was still in line with the imperial authorities: “Despite the fact that the emperor’s order was issued, we cannot violate the rights of the city’s founders and the people who are their descendants.”
Ms. Oxana Horobtsova, communications specialist at Caritas Zaporizhzhia, believes that the key to resistance is the joint work of educators, media, and civil society organizations.
“We must have our own truth, supported by facts, sources, and historical heritage. And this truth should be told loudly – through books, films, lessons in schools and media materials,” she said.
Ms. Oxana Horobtsova also added that civil society and the volunteer movement, in particular, are currently developing strongly in Zaporizhzhia. A significant threat is how actively Russia is promoting its narratives. Therefore, it is very important that more channels appear that can spread the Ukrainian view of the history of Zaporizhzhia.
The discussion at UCMC’s Press Center demonstrated that the war for historical memory is not a metaphor, but a reality. When myths become instruments of war, the truth must be armed with facts, research, and the truthful word. In addition, the participants emphasized the importance of popular formats that spread pro-Ukrainian views and refute Moscow’s myths. This is especially true for young people, who are currently forming their own historical memory, often using only audiovisual materials, which are not so abundant in the Ukrainian context, while Russia uses significant resources to create and disseminate its imperial narratives in a variety of formats.
The struggle for Ukrainian Zaporizhzhia is not only a war for territory, but also for meanings, for history, and for the right to be oneself. Debunking imperial myths, spreading true knowledge about the Cossack past, the real founders of the city, and the industrial development of the region are tools for protecting national identity. At a time when Russian propaganda keeps trying to appropriate our past, it is extremely important to speak loudly, persistently, and in a way that is accessible – through facts, through the voices of researchers, journalists, and civil society. Only when Ukrainians know the truth about themselves will it be impossible to steal it.
The discussion was organized around the demonstration of the video “Myths about Cossacks and their history”, created as part of a special study “Myths and narratives of Russian propaganda that destroy Ukrainian identity in the south and east of Ukraine: exposure and refutation”, which was conducted by UCMC experts based on a survey of historians, local historians, journalists, and civic activists in each of the nine regions covered by the project. The event was held within the framework of the project “Strengthening Information Resilience in Ukraine” in partnership with the International Practitioners’ Partnership Network (Estonia) with the support of the European Union.