Before enemy tanks invade a country, the aggressor nation infiltrates its culture and language. It spreads its own stories while suppressing the local ones. By fostering loyalty to their culture in neighbouring countries, invaders expect to gain support for their territorial ambitions.
Russia has followed this playbook for years, appropriating cultural figures, erecting monuments to its leaders, and flooding the information space with its content. Narratives like “culture is separate from politics” or “What does Pushkin have to do with it?” are manipulative distractions from Russia’s military aggression and the national security of other countries.
Most people tend to associate Russian culture with ballet, Dostoyevsky, and Tchaikovsky, overlooking the fact that it nurtured those who established and perpetuated a barbaric regime of terror, repression, and war for many centuries. Russian culture, like that of other invading powers, not only forms the basis of war but also serves as its trigger.
“Culture is the output of human hands, heads, and hearts. The main function of culture is to keep society from barbarism. If the culture does not fulfil this function, then it should be cancelled (…). “
Yaroslav Hrytsak, Ukrainian historian
Russian cultural expansion is not a recent phenomenon. For the past 400 years, the Russian government has repeatedly suppressed the Ukrainian language, attempting linguistic genocide on numerous occasions. The Valuyev Circular (1863) effectively banned the publication of Ukrainian books, stifling the development of Ukrainian literature for many years. The Ems Order (1876) imposed a ban on the use of the Ukrainian language in various domains such as theatre, church, and music, severely restricting the publishing and import of Ukrainian books.
The Russian Empire, followed by the USSR, enforced a policy of Russification during the colonization of other countries and peoples. This involved imposing the Russian language as the main one, prohibiting the use of native languages, erecting monuments to Russian historical figures and cultural icons, destroying the cultural achievements of subjugated peoples, and the physical elimination of the intelligentsia. Through these actions, Russia sought to establish its culture as dominant, forcing colonized peoples to comply without any sense of national identity. This tactic made it easier to control populations lacking a distinct identity. This gave rise to the false propaganda narrative of brotherhood between Ukraine and Russia, which disregards historical, ethnic, and cultural realities. Despite its lack of authenticity, this narrative continues to influence perceptions globally.
During the 1920s and 1930s, the Soviet regime targeted a generation of literary and artistic figures in what became known as the “Executed Renaissance.” Even during the period of de-Stalinization in the 1960s, the Ukrainian cultural movement, often referred to as the “sixtiers,” faced persecution and execution by the state.
There’s a big difference in how Russia’s art is seen by people outside and inside the country. To the rest of the world, it seems mysterious and kind of dark. But inside Russia, it often tells people that they can’t really change anything, so it’s better to just give up and go along with whatever’s happening. This way of thinking makes it easier for Russian propaganda to control people, cultivating those narratives they need and making people support the war. One of the core concepts underlying the “Russian world” is the notion of the unique sanctity of the Russian soul, forged through suffering. This emphasis on suffering elevates it to the highest value, permeating the entire societal framework. For Russians, the greater the suffering, the greater the spiritual depth.
Andriy Kurkov, the writer, explains “Russia, especially outside large cities, has always had a law of strength and violence. Until recently, Russian cinema focused much on social injustice. These films were made for foreign viewers, they were awarded at different festivals while Russians haven’t even watched them. Because they haven’t been seeking justice, as they don’t believe in it. It means that injustice is normal in Russia. And if injustice is normal, then all ways to reach injustice are traditional”.
He also said, “Try to understand who attacked Ukraine: collective Roskolnikov (the main character of “Crime and Punishment” – edt.), collective Dostoevsky or collective Putin. In fact, it may turn out that it is 3 in 1, because they all complement each other with their moral qualities, principles and conviction that a crime can be justified, and a criminal – unpunished. Bucha, Vorzel, Borodyanka, Irpin, Mariupol – these are all answers to what Russian culture means in Russia.”
The duality of Russian culture, initially identifying as European while exhibiting typical nomadic barbarian behaviour, embodies the enigmatic “Russian soul” that has intrigued the Western world for centuries. Yet, this fascination belies a dark truth—a deep-seated inclination towards criminality and a belief in evading consequences. Despite the visible fallout from the 2022 full-scale war, many Europeans fail to grasp the imperative of distancing themselves from Russian culture, viewing it as unrelated to Putin’s war.
“It is not Putin who is waging war with us; it is the Russians who are waging war. This is very important to understand. It is not Putin who made Russia this way; it is Russia who called Putin to the throne. It needs just such a person. This is not the worst option; after Putin, an even worse person can come,”
Yosyp Zisels, Ukrainian dissident
What Dostoevsky writes, and the whole world perceives as mystical Russian grotesqueness, is only a reflection of the average Russian: “Yes … I am covered in blood,” said Raskolnikov with a special look; then he smiled, nodded, and went downstairs. He walked slowly and unhurriedly, feverish but not aware of it, completely absorbed in the new overwhelming sense of life and strength that suddenly rose within him.”
(“Crime and Punishment”, 1866)
At the same time, Russia openly recognizes culture as one of the components of its hybrid war. The former director of the Hermitage said that he “considers Russian cultural events abroad to be ‘cultural special operations’ and that Russia is conducting a ‘cultural offensive against the West.’ This is truly an attack on the consciousness of the inhabitants of other countries, an attempt to impose positive associations with themselves on them, to hide the truth about their own conquering intentions in this way.
Cancelling Russian culture is a form of self-defence for nations whose survival is under threat from Russia. Russia has initiated an unjust war against a sovereign state, consistently violating international law. Russian military actions have led to the deaths of thousands of innocent people, including artists and Ukrainian intellectuals, and the deliberate destruction of Ukraine’s architectural heritage. In such circumstances, any cultural collaboration with the aggressor normalizes its war crimes and offers Russia new platforms for presenting itself. For decades, Russia has manipulated culture for political propaganda, whitewashed its international reputation, diverted attention from its war crimes against other countries, and reinforced imperial and colonial dominance in fields like humanities and political science.
Despite the global solidarity with Ukraine, which includes support for refugee artists, Western cultural and academic institutions have initiated various programs aimed at “reconciling” Ukrainians with Russians and fostering “intercultural dialogue.” These efforts undermine the collective responsibility of all Russians for more than 20 years of Putinism, the ongoing war in Ukraine, the political apathy of Russian society, and the failure of its civil resistance.
“Russian culture has always served as a legitimate cover for the Russian Empire: we have the right to influence the fate of other countries because we have a wonderful ballet; we have the right to decide the fate of other nations because we have the brilliant Dostoevsky.”
Volodymyr Viatrovych, historian
The Western attitude towards Ukraine’s boycott calls against Russia and the persistent push for “reconciliation” between the victim and the perpetrator are fundamentally colonial. This perspective is entrenched in rigid hierarchies: Russia remains the centre while Ukraine is viewed as a lesser-known periphery; the cultural significance of Russia is deemed greater than human lives; Russia’s voice holds more authority than that of its colonized neighbours. This outdated paradigm must be dismantled before any discussions of “reconciliation” or dialogue can be entertained.
The global community must recognize that Russia’s invasion constitutes a neo-colonial aggression against a sovereign and peaceful nation—an effort to revive Russia’s imperial ambitions. Ukraine’s resistance represents a decolonial struggle, aimed at breaking free from its past as part of an empire and fostering a Western-oriented political identity. Ukraine isn’t just fighting for its independence through military means; cultural resistance is equally vital in this battle. It is impossible to demonstrate one’s cultural achievements with one hand and destroy another nation’s cultural heritage with the other.
References:
youtube.com/watch?v=XKBxyMtADHQ
ukrainer.net/russian-culture-cancelled
krytyka.com/en/articles/cancel-russian-culture-as-a-means-of-survival
life.pravda.com.ua/culture/2022/06/12/249075
suspilne.media/culture/215495-blog-ponti-abo-zagadkova-rosijska-dusa