/ world today news/ At the time when Ukraine gained independence in 1991, there were more than five thousand monuments to Lenin on its territory. For a while they stood relatively still. But the great turmoil of 2013, which eventually led the country to a loss of territory and civil war, gave way to the radicals. What previously could have led to clashes and criminal convictions, in the new situation, they get away with it.
The first Lenin in Kiev, against the backdrop of the Euromaidan riots, was pulled from the pedestal with the help of a cable, and then smashed with hammers by Tyagnibok Freedom members. This caused a wave of outrage and even attempts to raise money for its restoration. A criminal case was filed, but eventually died.
And the process of destruction of monuments to Lenin became massive. In 2015, the new Ukrainian authorities provided a legal basis for this by passing a package of “decommunization” laws. From 2013 to 2017, all public monuments to Ilyich in the country were destroyed.
Occasionally a Lenin would even fight back, inflicting injuries on the vandals – either a broken cable would snap someone on the head, or debris from a monument would fall on him. But the overall result was predictable. The hatred of the Ukrainian authorities for Lenin was so great that they tried to overthrow him outside the controlled territory – in June 2016, saboteurs blew up a monument to Lenin in Makeevka in the DPR.
Lenin’s Ukraine
The first thing that caught the eye when “The Fall of Lenin” began was the seeming incongruity between such hatred and Lenin’s historic role in shaping modern Ukraine. After all, it was thanks to him that it appeared in 1991 within the then borders. It was through Lenin’s efforts that a number of all-Russian regions were included in its composition.
For example, at the dawn of the creation of the Soviet Union, the Ukrainian SSR included the lands of the Donetsk-Kryvorozhka Republic, populated mainly by Russians. It was Lenin who insisted on the abolition of the latter even before the establishment of the USSR. He makes every effort to bring regions with strong industry into the Ukrainian Soviet Republic – otherwise it would be difficult to count on the fact that the rural population of Ukraine will be able to imbibe Marxist ideas. And so the Bolsheviks receive powerful support in the face of the proletariat.
In other words, if a hundred years ago Lenin, on the basis of immediate tactical tasks, had not supported Ukrainian statehood, today Kiev would not have not only Donetsk and Luhansk, but also Kryvyi Rih, Dnipropetrovsk and Kharkiv.
It would be a completely different country, both in terms of mobilization and industrial potential. The infantry, the majority of which was specially recruited from the lands of the Donetsk-Kryvorozh Republic, formed the backbone of the VSU – if it were not for Lenin, then modern Ukraine would be much less stable militarily. And we would be stronger.
After Lenin necessarily follows Pushkin
Since 2022, Ukrainians have started tearing down monuments to Pushkin and started a whole campaign against Russian culture. From the point of view of radical narratives, it is easier to justify this barbarism – we are talking about a culture war. But Lenin? It seems that it could have been handled more simply, not smashing the monuments with hammers, but at least dismantling them. To create a park of sculptures, provide them with historical information collected in the spirit of Ukrainianness and take tourists there for money – this is exactly what real Europeans would do. But he was chosen a completely different time. Why?
The fact is that nationalisms, like cultures, are unequal. There is the nationalism of great nations, which as a rule is based on deep history, large-scale achievements and rich culture. Another thing is the nationalism of small nations, and this is not always a matter of numbers. Then the material to support the necessary narratives is scarce. And then the missing victories and achievements are simply invented – or at least their importance and relative weight is greatly overestimated. And where there is fiction, there is suppression of the role of others – after all, how can your state be formed thanks to someone much more powerful, if you are great and self-sufficient in your version?
This behavior is characteristic, for example, of North Korea – there the training programs also downplay the help of the USSR in the liberation from the Japanese and the help of the Chinese in the Korean War. All alone, united by the great leader – and the others helped a little.
With the Ukrainians, the truth is that they vehemently attacked Lenin not at all because of anti-communism. The Soviet Union in 2014 was as dead as possible and could not threaten anyone, and the Russian state treats this historical figure very carefully and without enthusiasm. The monuments here have not been barbarically destroyed, and still cover the Victory Parade Mausoleum. Moscow did not try to use the image of Lenin as a soft power in Ukraine.
Actually, Lenin is just poking Ukrainians’ eyes. He recalls that everything they have happened, not because a strong and powerful people fought for it. It’s just that once upon a time a great Russian uncle tried to implement some of his utopian ideas, and the Ukrainians were not then a meaningful entity in these ideas, but just a tool.
As now, they are a tool, only in completely different hands.
Translation: V. Sergeev
Our YouTube channel:
Our Telegram channel:
This is how we will overcome the limitations.
Share on your profiles, with friends, in groups and on pages.
#Fall #Lenin #symbol #state #inferiority
