Today, when Ukraine is waging a war for its existence, every blow to the unity of society becomes threatening. However, the actions of some representatives of the authorities are increasingly striking with their unpredictable and even shocking steps that, instead of uniting, exacerbate internal conflicts. Polarizing mobilization decisions, with TCCs resorting to dubious coercive methods, as well as hotly debated language policies, create further cleavages in society. At a time when the enemy is waiting for any weaknesses, internal disagreements can become fatal. Dissatisfaction with the language policy and pressure on those who disagree create the ground for conflicts within the country, which plays into the hands of those who seek our downfall.
Polarization of society
The polarization of society in Ukraine today is a problem that cannot be ignored. War, occupation, internal migrations and economic crises created deep fault lines that divided Ukrainians into different camps. We are no longer a single society with the same views or interests. Different social groups have their own experiences, experiences and fears, and this shapes their views on the future of the country.
One of the most visible dividing lines is the experience of war. People who lived in temporarily occupied territories or directly in the war zone have completely different views on war than those who lived in relatively peaceful regions. They saw the war from the front row: losses, destruction, brutality of the occupation. This radically distinguishes them from those for whom the war mostly remains news on the screen.
Another significant group is military personnel and their families. They are not just observers – they are combatants, those who risk their lives every day defending the country. Their view of the conflict, its consequences and the future of Ukraine is often deeper and more critical than that of civilians. Military families experience the war in their own way: they lose loved ones, they face worries for those who are at the front. And these emotional losses form a separate reality, different from the rest of society.
Other divisions cannot be ignored. For example, Ukrainians who were forced to leave the country because of the war and now live abroad. They perceive the situation differently than those who remain. Exposure to foreign media, cultural context, and distance from hostilities change their attitudes toward what is happening at home. There is often a conflict of views between the refugees and those who remained in Ukraine, especially on the issue of aid and support.
Polarization also manifests itself in religious differences. Adherents of the Orthodox Church of Ukraine and the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church are often ideologically distant from the faithful of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the Moscow Patriarchate. This is not just about faith – it is a question of identity, national consciousness and how people see the future of Ukraine.
Linguistic polarization remains a separate issue. Ukrainian-speaking and Russian-speaking Ukrainians, although they share common national ideas, often have different views on politics, culture and even on the war itself.
And this is where propaganda comes in. However, unlike traditional propaganda, which tries to influence through uniform messages, we are now witnessing the phenomenon of “propaganda in reverse”. The official information policy excessively imposes on Ukrainians a single correct view of all aspects of life, which creates alienation. Trying to force people to think the same way only exacerbates the divide, as it is important for many to have their own experiences heard and acknowledged.
Today, Ukraine does not need unanimity of opinion, but open discussions. Instead of trying to force everyone to think the same way, it is worth creating a space for dialogue where each group can express their experiences, views and fears. Only through honest conversation can we achieve unity in this difficult time. The authorities and Ukrainians should understand that different thoughts and experiences are not a reason for enmity, but an opportunity for a deeper understanding of each other.
An extremely acute language issue
One of the most controversial topics of social polarization is the language law, which was intended to protect and develop the Ukrainian language. However, its implementation turned out to be much more aggressive than expected. The Commissioner for the Protection of the State Language, Taras Kremin, recently made a harsh statement, emphasizing the offensive Ukrainization of the population instead of a gentle one.
“Now, I don’t see anything other than offensive Ukrainization, which has been replaced by a gentle one. We have tools and levers for monitoring, controlling and punishing each business entity“, said language ombudsman Taras Kremin.
Many believe that such categorical positions undermine trust and cause unrest among a part of the population, especially among Russian-speaking Ukrainians who, despite supporting Ukraine, face language difficulties.
“Bilingualism entails linguistic schizophrenia, when the simultaneous use of several languages with an uncertain priority of Ukrainian as a state entails schizophrenia both in behavior and in attitudes towards national interests“, the language ombudsman continues to pour harsh statements.
How did it happen that Ukrainians, who speak Russian due to territorial peculiarities, suddenly became “schizophrenics” in the eyes of a representative of the authorities?
Taras Kremin’s statements that bilingualism in Ukraine leads to “linguistic schizophrenia” are not only striking in their sharpness, but also show a deep misunderstanding of the realities of modern Ukrainian society. Such statements not only disparage the country’s multilingual heritage, but also call into question the ability of citizens to be culturally rich and flexible.
It is not for nothing that our great Kobzar Taras Shevchenko wrote:
“And learn from others, and do not shun your own.”
The language law in Ukraine is not just a legal norm, but a real litmus test of public attitudes. For some, it has become a symbol of national revival and identity, a sign that the Ukrainian language is finally taking its rightful place in its own country. They see it as a long-awaited step towards abandoning the colonial legacy, returning to the roots. For them, every new law, every inspector is a victory in the long-term struggle for language, for the right to be heard on their land.
However, there is another side. For part of society, the language law has become a symbol of coercion and pressure. People who grew up in a Russian-speaking environment all their lives or for whom Ukrainian is not their native language feel oppressed and consider it discrimination. Language inspectors who fine for “wrong” language and public reprimands only cause indignation and rejection of speaking Ukrainian, perceiving it as a limitation of personal freedoms. For them, this law is not a step towards unity, but a factor that deepens the gap between citizens of the country who have different linguistic backgrounds.
Ukrainians have always been multilingual, this is part of our history and everyday life. Imposing a one-dimensional approach to language means splitting society into “right” and “wrong” Ukrainians. It fuels new conflicts at a time when we need maximum unity. General modern internal politics and, in particular, Taras Kremin’s statements create the impression that only one language makes a person a “real” patriot, and all others are like carriers of a “defect”. This is not just offensive, but dangerous, because it undermines the possibility of open dialogue and reconciliation.
Bilingualism is not a disease, but an advantage, especially in a world where knowing more than one language opens up new opportunities. Instead of demeaning people for their linguistic identity, the focus should be on how to strengthen society through respect for diversity. In times of war, when the enemy tries to divide us, such statements only play into his hands, splitting society from within.
It should be emphasized that language conflicts do not exist among the military — this is one of the most vivid paradoxes of modern Ukraine. While the language issue is still a source of controversy and polarization in civilian life, it simply disappears at the front. Where life and death are concerned, only deeds, courage and support of fellow citizens matter. The language a person speaks becomes secondary. This is not because war erases identity – on the contrary, it emphasizes the most important thing: the willingness to defend one’s land. A Russian-speaking soldier and a Ukrainian-speaking soldier stand side by side, and they are united by a common goal — to destroy the enemy who is trying to destroy their Motherland.
The reason for this is simple – there is no time for artificial divisions at the front. Where every moment can be the last, there is only one value — support and trust in those around you. A comrade in arms is a person to whom you give your life for protection, and it does not matter whether he speaks Ukrainian or Russian. War reveals the essence of true unity: not a formal one based on rules or ideologies, but one that is tested in the fire of battles and trials.
That is why there are no language conflicts among the military and there will never be. They know that war is not about words, it is about actions. In war, what matters is not what language you give your command, but whether you are ready to cover your fellow man’s back when bullets are whistling overhead. And it is this silent pact of mutual support that makes the language issue at the front absolutely irrelevant.
How to cope with the problems of polarization of society abroad
Social polarization is a global challenge and many countries face this problem, although the causes and manifestations may be different. For example, in the US, political polarization reached its critical point after the 2016 and 2020 presidential elections. Liberal and conservative positions became so radical that dialogue between the two camps was almost impossible. This was manifested in the sharp division of society according to ideological, religious and social views. Universities, think tanks and non-governmental organizations began to actively hold discussions between representatives of different political forces, trying to find a compromise. Organizations like Braver Angels try to bring people of different political views together through shared discussions and projects to promote better understanding. Some states are experimenting with new election formats, such as ranked-choice voting, which avoid extreme candidates and support more moderate political positions.
In France, polarization is mostly focused on issues of immigration, national identity and social reform. The protests of the “yellow vests” showed how deep the gap is between the inhabitants of cities and rural areas, between elites and ordinary citizens. At that time, the French authorities tried to involve citizens in a “great national debate” where they could express their dissatisfaction and proposals for reforms. Governments are trying to reduce social inequality through tax and welfare reforms, trying to mitigate conflicts between different sections of society. Special programs for the integration of immigrants help reduce tensions between native French and new communities.
After the large wave of migrants in 2015, tensions between supporters of multiculturalism and those who oppose immigration have grown in Germany. Populist and nationalist movements such as the AfD (Alternative for Germany) have gained significant support, creating a political and social divide in the country. The government then launched numerous programs to counter xenophobia and racism, aimed at promoting tolerance and supporting multiculturalism. In schools and community centers, educational activities aimed at educating young people in the spirit of solidarity and coexistence of different cultures are constantly held. Security services and law enforcement agencies actively work with public organizations to identify and prevent radicalization of the population.
Spain also faces polarization between the central government and the regions, especially Catalonia, where separatist sentiment is strong. After the 2017 independence referendum, relations between the central government and the regions deteriorated significantly. Spain currently has one of the most decentralized systems of government in Europe, and the central government is gradually trying to give the regions more autonomy. Negotiations are ongoing between the central government and representatives of Catalonia to avoid an escalation of the conflict. The government is trying to involve a wide range of citizens in discussing important decisions to reduce tension and find a compromise.
Perhaps the most important lesson to be learned from international experience is the need for open dialogue between different groups in society. Conflicts and disputes can be resolved through discussion, not through coercion or aggression. It is important to implement measures that motivate, not force. In the case of Ukraine, this applies to both mobilization and compliance with language norms. Educational programs can help reduce the level of tension between different groups, and promoting the principles of tolerance and mutual respect in society can be a key element in overcoming polarization.
As we can see, the polarization of society is not only an internal problem, but also a threat to national security, therefore it is important to seek compromises and promote the unification of the nation, taking into account international experience. The question of whether the measures implemented by the government contribute to the unification of the nation is becoming very acute. It is obvious that the aggressive imposition of language norms, forceful conscription arbitrariness and the general lack of dialogue between the authorities and society create an atmosphere of division in the state.
Now Ukraine is faced with a choice: to strengthen internal unity and endure, or to waste precious time on internal strife, which can only weaken the nation in front of the enemy. This should be understood not only by the government, but also by society. In times of war, when every day is a struggle for life and freedom, the state must be a unifying force, not a source of conflict. And finally, it is critically important to remember that the biggest enemy now is not interpersonal conflicts, not linguistic or cultural differences, but external aggression. Ukrainians must unite, and this is possible only when the authorities will really work on the consolidation of the nation, and not on its division.
