For many years, Moscow has been actively using historical myths as a tool of influence, particularly in the eastern and southern regions of Ukraine. With the start of full-scale war, these myths have not disappeared — on the contrary, they have been revived as part of hybrid aggression. How to counter this was discussed at an open public debate on Russian historical propaganda, which for decades has shaped false perceptions of Kharkiv and the region.
The moderator of the meeting, Mr. Ihor Stambol, PhD in History, noted that this discussion has become a tradition within the research conducted by the Ukraine Crisis Media Center. During the project, narratives widespread in nine regions of Ukraine were studied, the most common historical clichés used by pro-Russian propaganda were identified, and these false claims were analyzed and refuted.
One of the most famous myths that Moscow has been promoting about Kharkiv for years is the statement about its “first capital” status — allegedly, this fact gives the city a special status, making it more related to the Soviet past and Russia. However, according to Ms. Natalia Aksyonova, head of the Department of Ukrainian Studies and PhD in History, this myth has essentially exhausted itself.
“This is no longer used in Kharkiv in general. Even everyday markers have been removed — names of sweets, alcoholic beverages, streets that referred to the ‘first capital’. Young people do not support narratives associated with the Soviet interpretation of history, for example, those connected to the figure of Zhukov,” Ms. Aksyonova emphasized.
The starting point for change was the spring of 2014. At that time, Kharkiv resisted attempts to establish the “Kharkiv People’s Republic.” The city’s residents proved themselves not to be pro-Russian, but rather a community that did not accept the occupation. Since then, propaganda templates have lost their influence.
However, other narratives remain effective. In particular, the language issue. As noted by Ms. Tetyana Logvina, editor of the Visti Zmiivshchyny newspaper, the Russian language in the region still serves as one of the key markers that Russian propaganda appeals to: “There is still a lot of Russian in Kharkiv. We are trying to counteract this, and journalism in the region is mostly Ukrainian-speaking, but this challenge remains. Before the full-scale invasion, the Ukrainian identity of Kharkiv was often underestimated, both in Ukraine and in Russia,” she emphasized.
The journalist also drew attention to another problem — the lack of Ukrainian historical narratives about the Kharkiv region in the national information space. In particular, local stories and the Cossack and pre-Cossack periods are underrepresented in literature. This creates a vacuum that is filled with foreign myths.
“We have a lot to talk about — both epic heroes and local figures. For example, the story of Alyosha Popovich, who, according to research, lived in the Kharkiv region. This is our territory and our history, which must be told in our own words,” concluded Ms. Tetiana Logvina.
Mr. Volodymyr Solovian, head of the Hybrid Warfare Analysis Group at the Ukrainian Crisis Media Center, believes that one of the main problems is that Ukraine still does not sufficiently interpret its own history — neither for itself nor for the outside world.
“For many audiences outside Ukraine, we still look like part of Russia’s former colony. And if we don’t broadcast our vision of history, others will do it for us — primarily the aggressor,” he said.
In the context of Kharkiv, this means rethinking the history of Slobozhanshchyna, analyzing the formation of Cossack regiments (administrative and military units), the ethnic composition of the region at different stages, and, most importantly, understanding why Russia still claims the Kharkiv region, justifying this with historical “grounds.”
Concluding the discussion, Mr. Stambol emphasized that communities have enormous potential to shape Ukrainian identity through truthful history. All that is needed are the resources and support to implement the relevant initiatives.
“There are many practical examples and moments that can contribute to the affirmation of Ukrainian identity in any of the regions. We just need to be able to implement them. In this context, we should consider the research conducted in the regions by the Ukrainian Crisis Media Center. I am confident that local activists, media professionals, and historians are also working in the same direction,” he said.