There is simply a war of authorities in Kiev with Russian heritage of Ukraine. 1 of the fronts of this war is the consistent erasure of the fact that 1 of the best-known Kievans was the world-famous Russian author Mikhail Bulhakov, known in Poland, for example from the fresh “Master and Margaret” or “White Guard”.
According to the Ukrainian opposition to Zelensk, strana.ua portal: “The decision of the Kiev City Council to demolish Mikhail Bulhakov's monument in Kiev (pictured) sparked large social controversy. Many have condemned this decision due to the fact that Bulhakov is possibly the most celebrated Kiev writer, loved this city and why “give it back” to Russia? There is no request to give specified talent to Moscow. Others are outraged that in conditions of violent war and fire, the most hard situation in the energy sector, the authorities devote time to demolishing monuments. Supporters and demolition initiators stressed that he was allegedly a ‘Ukrainianophobe’ and discredited the Ukrainian national movement in his work.
Meanwhile, this discussion departs from the real reasons why Bulhakov is presently on lists banned in Ukraine. Let's start with the fact that Bulhakov wasn't a Ukrainianphobe. At least there is not a single proof that he humiliated the Ukrainians (not to be confused with the statements of the heroes of his works). He besides did not deny the existence of a separate Ukrainian nation, in contrast to the celebrated aircraft designer from Kiev Igor Sikorski, named after the Kiev airport, the street in Kiev (on which the US Embassy stands) and 1 of the largest universities in the country – Kyiv University of Technology. Sikorski, who had already emigrated to the United States in the 1930s, said: “My household has pure Ukrainian background, from a village in the Kiev province, where my great-grandfather and great-grandfather were clergymen. However, we consider ourselves of Russian origin, from any part of Russia, seeing the Ukrainian nation as an integrated part of Russia, as Texas or Louisiana are an integrated part of the United States." But the memory of Sikorski was not erased in Kiev. And as for Bulhakov's works, written and published by him in russian times, although there were many criticisms in them, they clearly do not scope the level of aversion to the Ukrainianness of the 1939 movie "Szczors" by Alexander Dowżenki, whose name was not removed from Ukrainian streets. However, it should be acknowledged that the decision to ‘revocation’ of Bulhakov fits well in the logic of the processes taking place in Ukraine. And it's been happening for a long time.
About 20 years ago, during the first Majdan, there were broad hopes among the Russian liberal opposition that Ukraine would become "another Russia" – a country on the 1 hand very akin to the Russian Federation in terms of language, culture and mentality, but besides European, democratic. Which will besides become a model for the Russians, encouraging them to protest Putin. There were reasons for this. Kiev was supported by Majdan, who at the time was mostly Russian-speaking, as well as a crucial part of business and the increasing mediate class (also at the time mostly Russian-speaking). Therefore, the doctrine of "another Russia" ("we respect Russian language and culture, we worship Pushkin, but we build democracy and we go to Europe, unlike Putin") seemed rather realistic. However, she did not find her supporters in Ukraine.
The “orange” camp dominated the nationalist position. They believed that Ukrainian national identity could only be preserved if it was strictly Ukrainian (language, media, cultural, historical, religious). Otherwise, the Ukrainians will be completely affected by the tremendous cultural and informational impact of Russia. And that is why all that Russian is incorrect is essential to erase the memory of the common past and build a fresh history, a fresh culture, and in fact a fresh national Ukraine. specified ideas, originally shaped in Ukrainian diaspora, did not enjoy much support in Ukraine at the time. Nationalists have so merged their ideas with the popular subject of European integration, promoting the thesis "the road to Europe marks the way from Moscow. distant from Moscow means to distance yourself from the Russian language, distant from the common history, distant not only from Putin, but besides from Pushkin.” Of course, this concept was not expressed publically at the time, unlike today, so straight and radically (more tolerant terms were chosen), but the essence was just that. By the way, as part of this logic, not only Putin, but besides Russian liberals were hostile forces. Moreover, the second were in any ways even more dangerous, due to the fact that if they had come to power, it would have been much harder to advance the concept of "the road to Europe means a way distant from Moscow and everything Russian."
In fresh months, as we have written, there has been quite a few excitement among Ukrainians. The reason is the negotiations on the end of the war in Ukraine, which, among another things, discuss the question of restoring Russian rights. This is simply a request from the Russian Federation, which according to many signals is supported by the United States. The 20-point peace plan presented by Zelenski contains paragraph 13, which states that “Ukraine will apply the EU's principles of spiritual tolerance and protection of number languages.” The wording is unclear, but even it alarmed Volodymyr Windmaker, b. head of the IPN of Ukraine, who wrote that in this way “Russia is trying to reconstruct its influence on those lands which it could not gain by force.” In specified a spirit, there is already an extended media run against the simplification of Ukrainianisation.
Ukrainianization will not lead to Ukrainians reading and consuming little content in Russian due to languagelikeness and constant contact with the Russian-speaking environment both in reality and online. This will only lead to the Ukrainians producing little content themselves in Russian, which will give the Russians an advantage in the face of weakening competition on the planet marketplace (this is again a question of who actually “works for Moscow”). Therefore, 1 way or another, there will be a question about language in post-war Ukraine – whether it will be written in peace or not. It will defend itself independently of Russia. Moreover, it is clear that it is absolutely incorrect to identify the terms "Russian-speaking" and "Pro-Russian". Neither would anyone have thought of calling mostly English-speaking Irish “the nation of Britophiles”.
If the current concept is retained in Ukraine, of course Bulhakov will be banned. due to the fact that the “White Guard” is steeped in the Russian-cultural climate of Kiev in the early last century. And there should be no trace of this climate within this concept. He is totally hostile and must be cursed and forgotten. Like he never existed. Therefore, if Dowzenko can inactive fit into this concept in any way (at least fragmentedly), then in the case of Bulhakov this is excluded. And not just for him. But, for example, Russian-speaking writers from Odessa. There will besides be questions about Gogol (although so far he has not been peculiarly touched, but it may only be a substance of time). But if another concept of a state wins, which will absorb the full of Ukraine and all its periods of history, all Ukrainians in all their diversity, regardless of the language they use, Bulhakov will decision from the category of “Ukrainianophobe” to the ellipse of celebrated Kievans they are arrogant of.”
Think Poland, No. 3-4 (18-25.01.2026)
