By John Q. Hosedrinker 
On Constitution Day, President Volodymyr Zelenskyy submitted a draft law to parliament proposing the establishment of a National Pantheon in Kyiv. This memorial complex will honor distinguished Ukrainians who have made significant contributions to the nation’s independence, development, and cultural heritage. The Pantheon aims to solidify Ukrainian national and civic identity, ensuring that the memory of these heroes is preserved and respected for generations to come, with decisions regarding honorees to be carefully considered.
Read the original article here
President Zelenskyy has put forth a significant piece of legislation, the National Pantheon bill, to the Ukrainian parliament, signaling a clear intention to solidify national identity and historical recognition. His powerful statement, “No one will ever dictate how we live, how we speak, who we love, who we should be grateful to, or which heroes we should honour,” encapsulates the core sentiment behind this initiative. This bill aims to create a unified space where the contributions of all individuals who have fought for and inspired Ukraine across various eras will be formally acknowledged and preserved in the nation’s history. It’s about a Ukraine that values itself, its people, and its inherent right to self-determination.
The underlying principle here is one of national sovereignty over historical narrative. This isn’t just about recognizing heroes; it’s about asserting the right to define one’s own history and cultural heroes without external interference. The notion that external powers, or even historical narratives imposed from outside, should dictate who a nation holds in high esteem is fundamentally being challenged. This aligns with the idea that a nation’s identity is forged through its own experiences and the individuals it chooses to commemorate.
There’s a strong emphasis from figures like Kyrylo Budanov, who echoes Zelenskyy’s sentiment, that Ukraine will no longer allow external forces to dictate its heroes, holidays, or educational curriculum. This reflects a deep-seated desire, nurtured over centuries of struggle for independence, to chart its own course. The sacrifices of contemporary soldiers are seen as a continuation of this age-old fight for freedom and self-determination, making the preservation of their ancestors’ memory paramount.
However, this assertion of national prerogative has, predictably, sparked considerable debate and concern, particularly regarding the inclusion of figures or units from the past whose actions might be considered controversial by international allies. The specific mention of the Ukrainian Insurgent Army (UPA) and its historical actions, especially concerning Polish civilians, has become a focal point of this apprehension. The concern is that by honoring such figures, Ukraine risks alienating crucial allies, particularly Poland, whose support is vital during the ongoing conflict.
The comparison drawn between honoring UPA and honoring Nazi SS or NKVD units, while stark, highlights the depth of historical sensitivities involved. For some, particularly those with familial ties to victims of historical atrocities committed by groups like the UPA, the idea of their glorification is deeply offensive and unacceptable. This perspective suggests that Ukraine’s push to honor these figures, at the expense of potentially jeopardizing international support, is a misguided and potentially self-destructive strategy.
This situation has led to speculation about underlying motives. Some suggest that this move might be a deliberate attempt to create friction with potential EU accession partners, perhaps as a tactic by Ukrainian oligarchs to avoid the stringent reforms and anti-corruption measures that EU membership would entail. The idea is that by creating an international controversy, Ukraine could present itself as an unwilling participant in EU integration, thus sidestepping the difficult but necessary process of purging corruption.
The potential consequences of this legislative push are significant, especially concerning Ukraine’s crucial relationships with its international partners. The fear is that by insisting on honoring figures associated with past violence, Ukraine could alienate allies like Poland, jeopardizing not only their political support but also vital financial and military aid. This could be interpreted as a very “weird hill to die on” for Ukraine, especially during a war for its very survival.
The very timing of this bill, amidst a protracted war and an urgent need for international backing, has also drawn criticism. Some feel that this is an unnecessary provocation that could provide Russia with valuable propaganda material and undermine the goodwill Ukraine has garnered. The argument is that while national nation-building is important, especially for post-war stability, it needs to be balanced with pragmatic considerations of current geopolitical realities.
There’s a palpable sense of disappointment and frustration from some allies who feel that Ukraine, while seemingly appreciative of support, is now making choices that appear to disregard the concerns of those providing that support. The narrative of Ukraine “begging for help” while simultaneously taking actions that alienate its benefactors is a difficult one to reconcile for some observers.
The issue raises complex questions about historical memory, national identity, and the pragmatic necessities of international relations. While the desire to honor national heroes and define one’s own history is understandable, the way this is pursued, particularly concerning figures with controversial pasts, has tangible consequences for Ukraine’s present and future. The hope is that a balance can be struck between a strong, self-defined national identity and the crucial need for continued international solidarity in the face of existential threats.