The tyranny and mass torture that the Kremlin is using in Ukraine today, systematic shelling and rocket attacks on civilians, resulting in deaths of non-combatants, the abduction of people and cultural treasures, the ruination of ecosystems, i.e., the destruction of life and memory on the territory of our state, are not the only tools for destroying Ukrainians. In the context of the exhaustion and total fatigue of our fellow citizens, any sensitive topic is used by the enemy as an additional target. The impact of information weaponry on these targets weakens our solidarity and destroys or rather undermines our identity. Manipulative messages about the present and distortions of our history are part of Russia’s information war, which is currently being waged on all possible outlets and platforms. While Russian propaganda is not limited by resources or geography, we are armed only with our own critical thinking and the power of knowledge.
The Ukrainian Crisis Media Center hosted a public discussion entitled “How Russia mythologizes the past and manipulates the present: the case of Kharkiv.” Experts from the UCMC, Kharkiv historians, and journalists joined the discussion to talk about the pre-war and current intellectual and media situation in Kharkiv and figure out how fast the awareness of the pro-Ukrainian past is growing. At the same time, they noted how powerful Moscow’s propaganda had been in previous decades and how to counter such narratives today.
The discussion included a screening of the video “Kharkiv – a Ukrainian city. Always,” which was created as part of a special study entitled “Myths and narratives of Russian propaganda that destroy Ukrainian identity in the south and east of Ukraine: exposure and refutation.” The study was conducted by UCMC experts based on a survey of historians, experts on local lore, journalists, and civil society activists in nine regions of Ukraine.
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 Ukrainian Crisis Media Center. During the project, narratives widespread in southern and eastern Ukraine were studied, the most popular historical clichés used by pro-Russian propaganda were identified, and these false claims were analyzed and refuted. In the context of this study, Kharkiv both has its own peculiarities and continues a certain general trend.
The study identified a number of key pro-Russian myths that form part of the information landscape in Kharkiv. One of the most widespread is the belief that with Russia’s arrival in the city “everything will be fine” — from the economy to social security. There is also a perception of Russia’s invincible military superiority, which supposedly guarantees its victory. Added to this is the myth of Kharkiv as a Russian city, which allegedly has always been Russian-speaking and prospered during the Soviet era. Such narratives were actively supported through official memory politics, in particular through the preservation of symbols of the Soviet era, such as the monument to Soviet Marshal Georgy Zhukov, known for his cruelty towards his subordinates. In addition, a large avenue in the city, which was to be renamed in honor of the famous dissident Petro Hryhorenko, remained under its old name for a long time, partly due to the initiative of local authorities.
Post-Soviet identity perceptions constitute a separate group. In particular, the myth of Kharkiv as the first capital of Ukraine, although not directly pro-Moscow, is nevertheless based on the Soviet past and serves as an argument for devaluing the modern Ukrainian statehood context. In general, the idea of Kharkiv’s “non-Ukrainianness” and the appeal to the Soviet past remain as cultural inertia, although with the start of full-scale war, it is gradually losing its power.
The discussion began with an analysis of the international aspects of the Russian Federation’s hybrid expansion, presented by Mr. Volodymyr Solovyian, head of the Hybrid Warfare Analysis Group at the Ukrainian Crisis Media Center. He emphasized that Moscow actively manipulates historical narratives not only within Ukraine but also on the international stage. One of the main tools of this policy is the myth of the liberating role of the USSR in World War II, which the Kremlin promotes as proof of its civilizational exceptionalism. This myth is appealing to a number of authoritarian countries, such as China, North Korea, and some Arab regimes, where revisionism, including Holocaust denial, is widespread even at the academic level.
Mr. Volodymyr Solovyian also noted that these narratives are not new; since the Cold War, Moscow has been forming its own “information blockade” and is now adapting it to the conditions of the modern information war. In addition to historical themes, Russia actively exploits its narrative of being a great space power, spreading ideas about the technological superiority of the USSR and Russia among the countries of the Global South. Through diplomatic channels, cultural institutions, and media agencies, the Kremlin is shaping a positive perception of itself as an opponent of the West, supposedly the bearer of some alternative historical truth, which is an important component of modern hybrid aggression.
One of the most famous myths that Moscow has been promoting about Kharkiv for years is the idea that it was the first capital of Ukraine (in fact, of Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic), which supposedly gives the city a special status, linking it to the Soviet past and, accordingly, to Russia. Propaganda actively used this historical detail as a tool of mental influence, emphasizing that Kharkiv was the first capital of Soviet Ukraine and, therefore, a natural part of the Russian-Soviet cultural space. As a result, the First capital myth served not only as a symbol of “former greatness,” but also as an attempt to weaken the city’s Ukrainian identity.
However, according to Ms. Natalia Axyonova, head of the Department of Ukrainian Studies at V. N. Karazin Kharkiv National University and candidate of historical sciences, this myth has now essentially exhausted itself. Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine was a powerful catalyst for changing the identity of many Kharkiv residents. Their patriotic fervor, mass volunteerism, the defense of the city from the aggressor, and rethinking of local history have led to a growth in the self-awareness of Kharkiv residents as citizens of the Ukrainian state. The First capital myth is losing its influence, giving way to real history and the values of the modern Ukrainian resistance.
“This is no longer used in Kharkiv in general. Even everyday markers have been removed—names of sweets, alcoholic beverages, and streets that referred to the “first capital.” Young people do not support narratives associated with the Soviet interpretation of history, for example, through the figure of Zhukov,” emphasized Ms. Axyonova. The starting point for change was the spring of 2014. At that time, Kharkiv resisted attempts to establish the “Kharkiv People’s Republic.”
The university lecturer also added that the older generation of Kharkiv residents finds it much more difficult to embrace pro-Ukrainian narratives than young people. And in universities, despite the remote learning regime amid constant shelling from Moscow, Kharkiv students today demonstrate significant consolidation and full support for the Ukrainian agenda and Ukrainian defense forces.
The townspeople showed themselves not as supporters of pro-Russian views, but as a community that does 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 remains 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-language, 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. Vladyslav Yatsenko, PhD in History, research fellow at the M. S. Hrushevsky Institute of Ukrainian Archaeography and Source Studies, and founder of the popular YouTube channel Historical Webinar, emphasized the noticeable demographic change that has taken place in Kharkiv as a result of the full-scale war. According to him, modern Kharkiv is significantly different from the pre-war city in terms of both population composition and level of civic engagement. Mr. Vladyslav Yatsenko also acknowledged that, despite the generally indifferent position of the city authorities in previous years, they did contribute to the processes of decommunization, especially in the symbolic space — renaming streets, dismantling monuments, and changing public rhetoric.
At the same time, the historian emphasized that the older generation of Kharkiv residents still hold strong pro-Soviet beliefs that are not so easy to eradicate. These attitudes, formed over years of living under the Soviet system, are often passed on in everyday life and influence family narratives. According to Mr Vladyslav Yatsenko, even after the start of Russia’s aggression, some older residents are prone to nostalgia for the USSR or to repeating pro-Kremlin talking points, albeit not always consciously. That is why he considers it extremely important to continue educational work aimed at deeper understanding of the city’s history and the role of each generation in its reinterpretation.
Mr. Volodymyr Solovian, head of the Hybrid Threat 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, either for itself or for the outside world.
“For many audiences outside Ukraine, we still look like part of a former Russian colony. And if we don’t broadcast our vision of history, others will do it for us — primarily the aggressor,” he stressed.
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. Ihor Stambol emphasized that communities have enormous potential to shape Ukrainian identity through truthful history. The Cossack past is also important. All that is needed are resources and support to implement relevant initiatives.
“We have a lot of practical experience and arguments that can help strengthen Ukrainian identity in any region. We just need to be able to implement them. In this context, we should consider the research conducted in the regions by the Ukraine Crisis Media Center. I am confident that local activists, media professionals, and historians are also working in the same direction,” the historian emphasized.
Thus, the public discussion at the Ukraine Crisis Media Center showed that Kharkiv is gradually freeing itself from the Soviet-imperial narratives that have shaped its informational, cultural, and symbolic environment for decades. The full-scale invasion by the Russian Federation was a turning point, after which the city saw a rethinking of history, a strengthening of Ukrainian identity, and a slow deconstruction of pro-Russian myths. Although some post-Soviet ideas remain entrenched, particularly among the older generation, young people, the academic community, and journalists are demonstrating a strong ability to resist disinformation, support Ukrainian-language journalism, and seek their own historical narratives.
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.
