Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine renewed the historical interest in the breakup of the Soviet Union and the birth of the modern Ukrainian State as well as its preconditions and consequences. Research on this – for historians – relatively recent period is still in its early stages. The 9th Annual Conference of the German-Ukrainian Historical Commission (DUHK) therefore provided an opportunity to study the profound transformation of Ukrainian society in the late 1980s and 1990s and move this period more to the centre of attention of historians and scholars of Ukraine.

In their opening remarks, TANJA PENTER (Heidelberg) and FRANZISKA SCHEDEWIE (Heidelberg) introduced the conference by highlighting the complicated circumstances under which the conference takes place and the influence of these on current research. Penter emphasised the difficulty, but importance of organizing the already third annual DUHK conference since the beginning of Russia’s full-scale war against Ukraine. She called for a reassessment of the dominating perspective on the late 1980s and early 1990s, which are still identified by the Russian name perestroika. The deviating developments in Ukraine, however, cannot simply be subsumed under this term. To come to a more nuanced understanding, she pointed out the potential of studying the numerous small actors and social movements of this period. Schedewie characterized the time under study as a multi-level process and a testing out of limits. She accentuated that current research approaches it “from below” by (re-)discovering everyday history, entangled history and the history of emotions. Moreover, she encouraged the participants to extend the period of study to the decades before and after the breakup of the Soviet Union.

FABIAN BAUMANN (Heidelberg) took up the latter suggestion by looking at the idea of Ukrainian nationhood as promoted by the republican leadership of the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic (SSR) since the 1960s. He argued that the Brezhnev years saw the emergence of a new form of official Ukrainianness by “banal” forms of nationalism. Soviet Ukrainian leaders expressed pride in the institutional quasi-statehood and represented ethnic symbols emptied of political meaning. This “banal” nationalism entered everyday life through sports reporting or school curricula and, Baumann concluded, was attractive to those Soviet Ukrainians who would not be convinced by an ethnic concept of nationality. By exploring the role of Chornobyl’ as a stimulus for the democratic processes in Ukraine, ALEXANDRA PULVERMACHER (Klagenfurt) examined one of the key ruptures of the late Soviet era. To trace the post-Chornobyl’ developments in Ukraine, she focused on Iurii Shcherbak, an environmental activist and founder of the environmental organisation Zelenyi svit (Green Earth). Despite resistance from the authorities, Shcherbak rallied more than 10.000 people and in consequence, Zelenyi svit gained prominence. Although from this mobilisation the civil society in Ukraine emerged, Pulvermacher nevertheless asserted that in the following years the ecological question served as a means, not an end.

In his paper, ANDRIY KOHUT (Kyiv) explored one of the crucial actors and guarantors of the Soviet system, the KGB. By drawing on the KGB archival records from Soviet Ukraine and especially a survey conducted within the institution, he demonstrated how the KGB tried to follow the rapid transformation of society. Kohut particularly emphasised the work of rehabilitation influencing the perception and loyalty of young “chekists” who lost trust in the official version of history. Although, he concluded, the KGB fought against “separatism”, it was already infected with it. Finalising the first panel, ANNA G. PIOTROWSKA (Cracow) focused on music festivals in the transition period. Music festivals such as Chervona Ruta, which was called a “Ukrainian Woodstock”, she argued, promoted the Ukrainian language and symbolism associated with the Ukrainian culture. Ukrainian organizers, musicians and fans were attracted by music genres such as Ukrainian rock and the kobzar tradition, which led to experiences like a spontaneous singing together of national Ukrainian songs. The festivals, Piotrowska underlined, thus served as a marker of incoming changes and opened Ukraine to the international festival movement.

FRANCIS KIRK (Potsdam) engaged with one of the paradigms of Soviet orthodoxy, the absence of systematic crime in the Soviet Union. Viewing systematic crime in the two cities of Odesa and Kryvyi Rih through the lens of republic and local newspapers, he illustrated the medial representation of such crime for ordinary people. Whereas for a long time, crime was portraited only very indirectly and as non-systematic incidents in the newspapers, in the late Soviet period the paradigm of no systematic crime collapsed. Although local newspapers were less likely to push the limits of glasnost, as Kirk stated, they reported earlier and in a more detailed way on gang violence and “mafia” crime than the all-Soviet media. PAUL PRIMBS (Munich) focused on the depiction of crime and youth in three Ukrainian films dealing with the early 1990s in Ukraine. Whereas in Russia the myth of the “wild 90s” and the romanticization of crime is used for a narrative of victimisation, Primbs argued that in Ukrainian films, this narrative is being overcome. Across the three films “Prijatel’ Pokojnika”, “Rhino” and “nazavždi-nazavždi” the focus shifts from a certain romanticization of crime to its only secondary importance and from the “last Soviet generation” to young Ukrainians who do not have substantial Soviet experiences. Exploring the history of the Evangelical-Baptist community in Ukraine, OLENA PANYCH (Dresden) identified three stages of development. Whereas the self-perception of this church only changed a little thorough the breakup of the Soviet Union, which is epitomized by the constant reference to a “Eurasian Brotherhood” of Baptists, Panych argued for a significant change since 2014. Although originally Evangelicals in Ukraine wanted to preserve good relations to their “Baptist brothers” in Russia, they got considerably involved into Ukraine fight against the Russian invasion.

The last event of the conference’s first day was a meeting with OLEKSII MAKEIEV, the Ukrainian Ambassador to Germany. In his talk with the Commission members Ambassador Makeiev emphasised the importance of the DUHK for the perception of German-Ukrainian history in the German public. It is important, he stated, that the Historical Commission not only produces new knowledge on German-Ukrainian history, but also spreads such knowledge and consciousness about the shared history of the two people in public.

Through the concepts of “belonging” and “otherness”, OLEKSANDR PANKIEIEV (Edmonton) discussed the various and historically overlaid narratives among steppe Ukrainian villagers. Drawing on oral histories of more than two hundred villages recorded since the early 2000s, he showed how elements such as a sense for the place as a key sense of belonging and the language as a marker of otherness shaped the local population's perception of people coming to the Ukrainian steppes after World War II. Whereas there was still a sense of “not belonging” in the 1990s, there were other examples where Russian-speaking people were accepted in the community, becoming apparent in visual architecture or schools. NATALIA KHANENKO FRIESEN (Edmonton) presented a project which was also based on a large-scale oral history project conducted in the late 2000s. Relying on these sources, she focused on the experiences of Ukrainian rural population throughout the collapse of the Soviet collective farming system and illustrated the slow and chaotic administrative transformation as well as individual experiences in the distribution of property. Friesen compared the decollectivisation of the 1990s in its importance with the collectivisation of the 1930s and argued for the need to recognize this time in Ukraine’s history as a period that brought about much unprocessed trauma to the Ukrainian countryside.

Considering the historiography on defectors in the Cold War, TOBIAS WALS (Munich) pointed out the lack of research on the role of national grievances for the defection of representatives of Soviet minorities. His case study on Iurii Turchenko, a professor of Ukrainian art history and director of UNESCO, aimed to close this gap as Turchenko’s decision to defect, Wals argued, was driven by his growing frustration over the ideological bounds the Soviet system imposed on Ukrainian culture. Thus, Wals concluded, Turchenko’s case does not only shed light on defection in Cold War, but as well on the ambivalent relation of the Soviet Union with Ukrainian national culture. IURII ZAZULIAK (Leipzig/Munich) examined the question of change and continuity over the breakup of the Soviet Union by studying the image of the Middle Ages in the late Soviet Union and early independent Ukraine. He argued for a case of continuity, as commemorative events such as the 1500 years’ anniversary of Kyiv determined the rhythms of academic history-writing in the late Soviet period as well as in the early years of Ukrainian independence. Academic history-writing at this time, he concluded, can be understood as a form of symbolic communication, which enhanced broader collective believes about history, but trivialised the scholarly investigation of the past. MATTHIAS KALTENBRUNNER (Munich) studied the transfer of knowledge and local historiography (krayeznavstvo) after 1991. Focusing on the diaspora historian Mykhailo Bazhans’kyi, who produced an enormous amount of knowledge about his native Sniatyn county in Western Ukraine, Kaltenbrunner argued for two approaches of krayeznavstvo in the 1990s, both epitomised in two local historians of Sniatyn. Whereas the first one, Yulian Radevych, tried to transfer Bazhans’kyj’s work without any change to Ukraine and thus externalised the Soviet Union from Sniatyn’s history, the second local historian, Teofil Vynohradnyk, chose an integrative approach to include Bazhans’kyi’s work into a Soviet narrative.

FRANZISKA DAVIS (Munich) aimed to change perspective on the breakup of the Soviet Union by looking at the Polish and Ukrainian mutual perception and interaction in the late 1980s. Within Polish underground circles and Solidarność, she highlighted, dominated the idea of a Polish-Ukrainian alliance as a prerequisite to liberate the two countries from Soviet rule. Ukrainian dissidents looked with profound interest at their western neighbour as they saw Solidarność as a role model for desired developments in Ukraine. In sharp contrast, the official records noted a strong hostility of common Ukrainian people against the movement in Poland. This latter discourse, however, changed rapidly when a free press emerged in Ukraine. In her paper, FRANZISKA SCHEDEWIE (Heidelberg) focussed on one of the formative actors of perestroika, Vitaly Korotich, the Ukrainian poet, who established the magazine Ogonek as a flagship of glasnost’. As for his viewpoints on his native Ukraine, which he expressed in various newspaper interviews between 1986 and 1991, nationality politics did not appear as one of his main topics, and the “common thread” running through various statements was his support for Gorbachev’s reform policy. At the same time, Schedewie maintained that Ukraine remained a topic for Korotich since his beginnings as a writer. OLGA GONTARSKA finally shed light on the rarely considered context of film production in Ukraine after 1991. Whereas in the late Soviet period, filmmakers were integrated into the Soviet system of film production and enjoyed a respected and privileged position, after independence, state fonds were cut, distribution networks could operate in a very limited way and unheated studios led to a mass strike. As Gontarska pointed out, this forced Ukrainian filmmakers to transform from artists into managers in a brutal reality.

In their closing remarks, GUIDO HAUSMANN (Regensburg) and GELINADA GRINCHENKO (Wuppertal) expressed their confidence in the potential of further research on Ukraine’s transformative history. Hausmann highlighted the diverse assessments of change and continuity made by the participants of the conference. Whereas certain developments were mainly dominated by continuity, others passed through significant ruptures or experience gradual change. Moreover, he emphasized the diversity of actors shaping Ukraine’s transformation and thereby expressed his optimism that Ukraine’s history in the late 1980s and early 1990s will be established as an independent research field not standing in the shadow of anything. Grinchenko added to this statement by remembering that Russia remains the point of reference for most comparisons of the Ukrainian case. She therefore suggested more research on other Soviet republic’s experiences to build up a distinct comparative framework in which Ukrainian history can be located. Referring to Russia’s war against Ukraine, she encouraged researchers to think about the question whether Ukraine’s transformative history examined by the conference constitutes a finished period or is rather still ongoing nowadays.

Speaking from a spectator’s perspective, the conference certainly fulfilled its aim to draw attention to an understudied period by bringing together the diverse topics and methodological approaches presented by the participants. It became evident that historical research on Ukraine’s transformation in the late 1980s and 1990s represents a substantial desideratum, but one that is now addressed by more researchers. Nevertheless, during the conference, the obstacles still to be overcome also became clear, as, for example, classical political history only played a minor role in most of the presented papers. Considering the divergent political developments of former Soviet republics after 1991 up to the current war, this political history especially requires attention. Altogether, however, the 9th Annual Conference of the DUHK has taken an important step to shift the focus more on Ukraine’s transformation and conceptualise this period different from the corresponding years in Russia.

Conference overview:

Opening Remarks

Tanja Penter (Heidelberg) / Franziska Schedewie (Heidelberg)

Panel 1: Democratic Processes and Nation Building

Chair: Anja Senz (Heidelberg)

Fabian Baumann (Heidelberg): “Well-Known and Sincerely Loved”: Banal Nationalism, Republican Pride, and Symbolic Ethnicity in Late Soviet Ukraine

Alexandra Pulvermacher (Klagenfurt): Chornobyl’ as the “Stimulus of all Democratic Processes in Ukraine?” Iurii Shcherbak, and the Environmental Movement’s Impact on Ukraine’s Journey to Independence

Andriy Kohut (Kyiv): Following the Unexpected Path: the KGB in Ukraine under Perestroika Challenges

Anna G. Piotrowska (Cracow): The Role of Music Festivals in the Transition Period from Soviet to Independent Ukraine

Panel 2: Everyday Life and Rethinking of Soviet Norms

Chair: Gelinada Grinchenko (Wuppertal)

Francis Kirk (Potsdam): The Reconstruction of the Late Soviet Criminal in Ukraine: Examining Glasnost and Criminal Discourses in the Ukrainian Regional Press, 1985 –1992

Paul Primbs (Munich): Overcoming Romanticization and the post-Soviet Frame of Reference? Youth and Crime in Ukrainian Feature Films about the1990s.

Olena Panych (Dresden): From “Soviet Baptists” to “Eurasian Brotherhood” to National Church: The Slow Evolution of Evangelicals in Ukraine throughout the Period of Independence

Talk with the Ukrainian Ambassador Oleksii Makeiev about Ukraine at War and Ukrainian-German Relations in Historical Perspective

Panel 3: Shifting Perspectives and Narratives in the Ukrainian Village

Chair: Guido Hausmann (Regensburg)

Oleksandr Pankieiev (Edmonton): Narratives of Belonging and Otherness among Steppe Ukraine Villagers

Natalia Khanenko Friesen (Edmonton): Difficult Memories of Decollectivization in Post-Soviet Ukraine: Rural Perspectives

Panel 4: Academics and the Challenges of Change

Chair: Yuri Shapoval (Kyiv)

Tobias Wals (Munich): Professor turned Defector: A Case Study of Nationally-Motivated Defection from the Soviet Union

Iurii Zazuliak (Leipzig/Munich): Entangled Temporalities of National Commemoration and Academic History-Writing in Late Soviet and Post-Soviet Ukraine

Matthias Kaltenbrunner (Munich): A Diaspora Historian and the Rebirth of Krayeznavstvo in a West Ukrainian Town (online)

Panel 5: Entanglements and Repercussions

Chair Anna Veronika Wendland (Marburg)

Franziska Davies (Munich): Perebudova and Polish-Ukrainian Interactions in the 1980s

Franziska Schedewie (Heidelberg): Being Ukrainian, Being Soviet in the Media: The Case of Vitaly Korotich

Olga Gontarska: Ukrainian Film Industry. Structural, Economic and Cultural Entanglements at the Time of Upheaval

Concluding Discussion and Closing Remarks

Guido Hausmann (Regensburg) / Gelinada Grinchenko (Wuppertal)