On January 22, Ukraine celebrates the Day of Unity, a holiday that is a symbol of unity, strength and hope. However, today this concept appears before us in a new light. The events of recent years have sharpened the question: has Ukraine become closer to the idea of confraternity that was proclaimed in 1919? This holiday is an occasion to think about the extent to which historical lessons, for which a considerable price was paid, remain relevant, and whether we are able to build our future based on the idea of a common home.
The Day of the National Assembly of Ukraine: a story that shapes identity
On January 22, 1919, Kyiv witnessed an event that would lay the foundation for a new stage in the history of Ukrainian statehood. The Act of Unification between the Ukrainian People’s Republic (UNR) and the Western Ukrainian People’s Republic (ZUNR) was solemnly proclaimed on Sofia Square. This document symbolized the aspiration of two parts of Ukraine, separated by historical and geopolitical circumstances, to unite into a single state.
The idea of unifying Ukrainian lands has been maturing for centuries. Western Ukrainian lands were under the rule of the Austro-Hungarian Empire, and Transdnieper lands were under the Russian Empire. These two parts of Ukraine had different experiences of state administration, education and culture, but they were united by their desire for national independence.
The First World War and the subsequent collapse of empires created a unique chance to implement this idea. The UNR declared independence in January 1918, and the ZUNR was formed in November of the same year after the collapse of Austria-Hungary. The common enemy of both states was Poland, which claimed the western Ukrainian territories, and Bolshevik Russia, which sought to regain control over the Dnieper region.
It should be noted that the Act of Zluka had great symbolic significance. However, the legal and administrative unification of the two states remained a difficult task. The ZUNR, transformed into the Western Regions of the UNR (ZO UNR), retained its autonomy, a separate army and a system of administration. Moreover, joint political decisions were often blocked by differences in approaches to solving key issues. At the same time, the military offensive of Poland on Galicia became a critical moment. ZO UNR, left without sufficient support, was forced to retreat, and its territories were occupied by Poland. The Ukrainian People’s Republic, which at that time was at war with the Bolsheviks, could not effectively help.
The realities of that time demonstrated how difficult it was to maintain unity in a state that had just begun to form. External pressure from stronger neighbors and internal contradictions became the main reasons why the attempt to create a united Ukraine was defeated.
In Soviet times, the memory of the Zluka Act was suppressed in every possible way. Soviet historiography tried to erase this episode from the national memory, focusing on another date – the entry of Western Ukraine into the Ukrainian SSR in 1939. However, in independent Ukraine, the Day of Sobornosty regained its significance. In 1990, it was marked by the formation of a “living chain” from Kyiv to Lviv, which became a symbol of the desire for unity. Similar actions are repeated today, reminding of how important it is to maintain the connection between regions.
Historical lessons of unity: what the past teaches us
In the 11th century, Kyivan Rus was one of the most powerful states in Europe, united under the rule of Prince Yaroslav the Wise. However, after his death in 1054, a period of civil strife began, when the princes fought for power, dividing the country into separate principalities. Disunity and constant conflicts weakened Rus’, making it easy prey for external enemies. In 1240, the Mongol hordes led by Khan Batiya captured Kyiv, finally burying the former greatness of the state.
It should be noted that the Ruin period in the history of the Hetmanate (1660–1680s) became one of the most tragic pages of Ukrainian history. After the death of Bohdan Khmelnytsky, his heirs could not preserve the unity of the Cossack state. The struggle for the hetman’s mace between Ivan Vyhovskyi, Yuriy Khmelnytskyi, Ivan Bryukhovetskyi and other hetmans split the country. Instead of a common front against external threats such as Poland, Muscovy, or the Ottoman Empire, the Cossack chieftain made conflicting agreements that only deepened the split. As a result, the Hetmanate lost its autonomy, and Ukraine was divided between two empires.
During the 19th century, Ukrainian lands were under the rule of the Russian and Austro-Hungarian empires. The lack of unity among the Ukrainian elite, which often focused on foreign countries, made it difficult to create a unified national movement. On the Left Bank, the policy of Russification was carried out, which destroyed Ukrainian culture and language. In Western Ukraine, although there was a certain cultural autonomy, the political division between Russophiles and Ukrainophiles prevented the consolidation of efforts.
However, after the declaration of independence of the Ukrainian People’s Republic in 1918 and the merger with the Western Ukrainian People’s Republic in 1919, it became clear that unification was only the beginning. The UNR faced internal contradictions that undermined the state from within. The lack of understanding between the UNR and ZUNR governments, as well as the struggle between socialists, anarchists and other political groups, weakened Ukraine’s position. Ultimately, the Bolshevik army took advantage of this disunity, and the Ukrainian People’s Republic lost its independence.
Let’s also return to the lessons of foreign history. One of the most famous examples is the Roman Empire. In its heyday, it was the most powerful state in Europe, but internal contradictions, power struggles and economic inequality led to its decline. The division of the empire into Western and Eastern (Byzantine) in 395 was the first step towards its final collapse. The western part was captured by barbarian tribes in the 5th century, losing the status of a superpower.
The Holy Roman Empire, which existed for almost a thousand years, fell apart due to constant conflicts between the emperor and individual principalities that sought greater autonomy. For example, during the Thirty Years’ War (1618–1648), religious differences between Catholics and Protestants turned the empire into an arena of bloodshed. This conflict weakened the central authority to such an extent that the empire ceased to be a single political force and was eventually dissolved in 1806.
Let’s mention one more example. In the 15th century, a war broke out in England between two branches of the Plantagenet dynasty — the Lancasters and the Yorks. This conflict, known as the War of the Red and White Roses (1455–1487), was a disaster for the kingdom. The struggle for the throne not only devastated the country, but also weakened the monarchy. Only through the unification of the dynasties in the marriage of Henry VII Tudor and Elizabeth of York was it possible to restore stability in the state.
As you know, Napoleon Bonaparte built one of the most powerful empires in the world, but over-expansion and lack of unity in his army and among his allies led to its downfall. His military campaigns caused discontent among the occupied peoples, who began to rise in rebellion. As a result, defeat in Russia and subsequent military failures ended the Napoleonic era.
The Civil War in the USA (1861–1865), which also led to a split in society, was no exception. At that time, internal contradictions reached a climax – the conflict between the North and the South over the issue of slavery and economic differences divided the country. Although the war ended in victory for the North, it caused enormous human and economic losses, and left a deep mark on society, the effects of which are still felt today.
At the end of the 20th century, Yugoslavia, which for decades united various ethnic and religious groups, also broke up into several independent states. The reason for this was ethnic conflicts, nationalist ambitions and economic inequality. The wars that accompanied the collapse (1991–2001) resulted in mass casualties, ethnic cleansing and humanitarian disaster. Yugoslavia became a vivid example of how a split in society can destroy even a relatively stable state.
The Soviet Union, which united 15 republics, also collapsed. In 1991, these occurred due to the economic crisis, political instability and the growth of national movements. Despite the powerful military potential, the state could not withstand internal disagreements, and different nationalities began to actively fight for independence. Consequently, the loss of unity in leadership and society made disintegration inevitable.
The history of mankind is filled with examples when the loss of unity and common purpose became fatal for entire peoples and states. They demonstrate that the lack of unity, mutual understanding and common purpose always leads to the weakening of the state, making it vulnerable to external enemies and internal crises. History has repeatedly shown that only those states survive that are able to overcome differences and consolidate their forces.
Ukraine is no exception, its history vividly illustrates how disagreements within society can lead to the loss of independence. In today’s country, regional divisions, ongoing political crises and external pressures continue to test our ability to consolidate. The loss of Crimea in 2014 and the start of the war in Donbass were a direct consequence of weak political will, internal disagreements and insufficient attention to national unity.
Internal threats to the unity of Ukraine: modern realities
History also teaches us that the greatest threats to the state do not always come from outside. Often, internal conflicts, differences of opinion and society’s inability to dialogue become the cause of weakening and sometimes loss of independence. Modern Ukraine, faced with the challenges of war and geopolitical pressure, simultaneously struggles with threats that arise at its very foundation — social unity.
As already mentioned, the history of Ukraine is rich in examples when internal conflicts became decisive in the loss of independence. The internecine strife of the times of Kyivan Rus, the Ruin period in the Hetmanship or the disagreements between the Ukrainian People’s Republic and the People’s Republic of Ukraine in 1919 — all these events demonstrate how the lack of unity and mutual understanding between different groups of society led to the collapse of even the most daring state-building projects. However, today Ukraine is once again facing the threat of repeating these mistakes, because internal disagreements are only intensifying against the background of the war.
Despite many years of efforts, the language issue remains one of the most painful in Ukraine. Legislative initiatives aimed at supporting the Ukrainian language cause irritation among a part of society that considers them excessive or discriminatory. In turn, supporters of such measures accuse opponents of sabotaging state policy. This polarization transforms language from a tool of unification into a cause for contention, actively used by enemy propaganda.
Society reacts sharply to the political activities of individual parties or their leaders. For example, supporters of different political forces often not only criticize opponents, but are also openly hostile to their voters, creating tension even within families or communities. Politics becomes a personal conflict rather than a problem-solving tool.
The situation surrounding religion in Ukraine also remains tense. The transition of church communities to the OCU and their conflict with the UOC (Moscow Patriarchate) is sometimes accompanied not only by legal disputes, but also by physical confrontation. Religion, which should be a source of unification of society and its moral support in difficult times, becomes another fault line that splits communities and increases mistrust.
The issue of mobilization is now causing serious social disagreements. Some consider it necessary for victory, others accuse the state of unfair approaches and lack of transparency. In social networks, one can see waves of outrage about the conditions of mobilization, the spread of fakes and even open calls for sabotage. This creates tension that shakes trust in the state and its institutions.
In addition to political views, the language issue, religious conflicts and attitudes to mobilization, there are a number of other factors that create differences in Ukrainian society. These issues are not always on the surface, but have a powerful potential to exacerbate internal tensions if ignored. Yes, one threat to state unity is intolerance to a different point of view. In many public discussions, criticism of the government or disagreement with the majority is automatically perceived as “treason”. Such an atmosphere destroys the possibility for a healthy reasoned dialogue, where different points of view could bring society closer together. Instead, society is increasingly polarized, dividing into “own” and “others”.
War, economic crisis, total corruption and constant scandals surrounding state institutions only increased people’s frustration and the gap between different social groups. Against the background of general impoverishment, a large part of the population feels outraged by the demonstrative luxury of officials, businessmen or representatives of show business. Society is increasingly divided between those who are forced to survive and those who remain “outside the war”. This creates distrust in the authorities, and also increasingly divides Ukrainians.
Historical, cultural and economic features of different regions of Ukraine also become the basis for disputes. For example, Western Ukraine, which has always been distinguished by strong nationalist sentiments, often does not find a common language with the South and East. This is often used by hostile propaganda, emphasizing the “incongruence of interests” of different parts of the country. In addition, the question of how exactly the processes of reintegration of the occupied territories should take place also divides society. Some citizens advocate a “tough scenario” that includes forceful methods, while others call for compromises and dialogue. This debate is accompanied by mistrust between the “camps”, and any proposal is often met with outrage and accusations of betrayal.
At the same time, the cause of internal conflicts is related to the renaming of toponyms, historical events, monuments, as well as figures, such as figures of the Soviet era or Stepan Bandera. For example, the heroization of Ukrainian nationalists causes resistance among those who consider them controversial figures. At the same time, the heroes of the Second World War, who fought against the fascists, also began to be perceived ambiguously in modern society.
Hence, history is a continuous lesson of the importance of maintaining unity in the face of internal and external threats. Modern Ukraine is faced with many factors that are currently dividing society, and this always comes at a high cost. Our state is now at a crossroads, where every conflict becomes a crack in its foundation. At the same time, history has proven more than once that internal disagreements do not simply weaken, but open the door to external influence, from which it is difficult to get out. Today, unity should not only be a declaration, but a struggle against real problems that cause polarization of opinion.
Ukrainians should realize that the loss of unity does not begin with loud political decisions, but with everyday trifles – intolerance of other people’s opinions, sarcastic or offensive comments, unwillingness to listen and understand. That is why preserving unity is not a task exclusively for politicians or officials, it should be decided by everyone who calls Ukraine their home. Because it is in these big or small, often imperceptible actions that our common future is born or destroyed.
Oksana Ishchenko
