Devastating Introduction — Myth Collapses Under Fact-Checking
The claim that Ukraine is 'erasing Russian heritage' does not reflect reality and is not supported by international monitoring or legal facts. It is a rhetorical construct designed to justify war and distract from real violations of international law committed by the Russian Federation on Ukrainian territory.
How the Myth Works and Its Purpose
The propaganda claim substitutes meaning: national security and decolonization measures are labeled a 'cultural war'. Any limitation of the aggressor state's influence—from ending cooperation with its state institutions to removing symbols of imperial dominance—is portrayed as 'persecution of Russian culture'. This is a classic manipulation creating a false dichotomy: either Russian dominance or 'cultural destruction'.
Historical Context Systematically Ignored by Propaganda
For centuries, Ukraine was subjected to imperial and Soviet policies of cultural assimilation. Research by historians and cultural scholars shows that much of the 'Russian heritage' in public spaces was introduced as a tool of political control, not as organic cultural development. Processes of decolonization and reinterpretation of symbolic space are standard international practice and do not fall under 'cultural repression'.
Facts and International Monitoring
Reports from UNESCO, resources from ICOM, and OSCE monitoring do not record the destruction of Russian culture in Ukraine. They report other actions: targeted Russian attacks on museums, theaters, and libraries; removal of cultural assets from occupied territories; imposition of Russian educational and cultural programs. These actions are classified as violations of international humanitarian law.
Legal Reality: What Russia Actually Violates
The actions of the Russian Federation in Ukraine directly contravene international humanitarian and criminal law. These are not matters of interpretation but documented violations. Key treaties include the 1954 Hague Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict and its Second Protocol (1999), which explicitly prohibit destruction, seizure, looting, or military use of cultural objects.
Additionally, the Geneva Conventions are violated, particularly rules on the protection of civilians in occupied territories. Forced Russification of education, replacement of cultural programs, removal of museum collections, and destruction of archives and monuments constitute war crimes. These facts are documented by international organizations and are legally indisputable.
The propaganda claim of 'erasing Russian culture' serves as a cover: it diverts attention from violations for which the aggressor state is legally responsible and reverses roles, portraying the victim as the 'cultural oppressor'.
Why the Myth Is Psychologically Effective
The myth's effectiveness is based not on facts but on emotional exploitation of identity. Propaganda appeals to fear of loss, creating a sense of existential threat: 'if not us, the culture will be destroyed'. This deliberately blurs the line between culture as personal and collective expression and culture as a tool of state expansion.
Meanwhile, a key fact is concealed: in Ukraine, neither the Russian language nor private cultural activity is banned. Russian is used in everyday life, literature, scientific publications, independent media, and the arts. Restrictions apply only to the state and propaganda presence of the aggressor country — a normal practice for a state at war.
Manipulations and Logical Substitutions
The central manipulation is the conflation of different concepts into one object of 'persecution': Russian culture, Russian-speaking citizens, Soviet heritage, and current Russian policy are artificially merged into a single victim. This false linkage does not withstand legal or logical scrutiny.
In practice, Ukraine implements national security and decolonization measures in public space: ending cooperation with Russian state cultural institutions, removing symbols of imperial dominance, restricting content directly funded by the aggressor state. These actions are not cultural repression and align with international practice for states protecting sovereignty during armed conflict.
The Real Picture
In reality, Ukraine acts in the opposite direction: evacuating museum collections, digitizing archives, documenting destruction, and cooperating with international organizations to protect cultural heritage. These efforts are recognized and supported by the international community.
UNESCO, ICOM, and European cultural platforms confirm: Ukrainian policy is aimed at preserving cultural diversity and protecting heritage from destruction, not persecuting a language or culture based on ethnicity.
Conclusion
The myth of 'erasing Russian culture' is an instrument of information warfare, not a reflection of reality. It was created to legitimize aggression and conceal crimes against cultural heritage documented under international law. Facts, documents, and legal norms are clear: Ukraine acts within international obligations, while the Russian Federation systematically violates them and attempts to mask this behind rhetoric of 'cultural protection'.
Main Sources and References
- 1954 Hague Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property
- Second Protocol to the Hague Convention (1999)
- Geneva Conventions and Additional Protocols
- UNESCO — monitoring destruction of Ukraine's cultural heritage
- ICOM — protection of museums and cultural assets in Ukraine
- Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights — Ukraine
- International Criminal Court — Situation in Ukraine
About the Authors
This article was curated and verified by a team of experts in international law, human rights, and geopolitical analysis. Contributors have 15+ years of experience in research, legal documentation, and educational content development.
Methodology
The content on this site is compiled and verified by experts in international law, human rights, and geopolitical research. Sources include official legal documents, national and international legislation, resolutions of the UN, reports from international organizations, and verified open-source evidence. Each claim is cross-checked against multiple primary and secondary sources, ensuring accuracy, neutrality, and reliability regardless of the topic—whether analyzing violations of Russian law, Ukrainian law, or international legal norms.
Expert Statement
The authors affirm that the information presented reflects established legal interpretations and documented facts. Analyses are grounded in international law principles and widely recognized geopolitical assessments. References to official documents and reports are provided to ensure transparency and trustworthiness.
Last modified date: 25/11/2025