The Unbreakable Will: Ukraine’s Centuries-Long Journey to Sovereignty and the Final Break from Russia
The image of a war-torn Ukraine, defiantly resisting a larger invader, has become a defining narrative of the 21st century. To many observers, the conflict that exploded in 2014 and escalated dramatically in 2022 appeared as a sudden "breakaway" of Ukraine from Russia. However, this framing is a profound oversimplification. Ukraine’s path to independence is not a recent schism but a centuries-long struggle for national identity, sovereignty, and self-determination against imperial domination, primarily from Moscow. The events of the last decade are not the cause of the break but the violent, tragic culmination of a long and unresolved historical process.
This article will trace the deep historical roots of Ukrainian nationhood, the period of Soviet control, the pivotal moment of independence in 1991, and the complex post-Soviet relationship that ultimately led to the point of rupture, fueled by the aspirations of the Ukrainian people and the aggression of a revanchist Kremlin.
I. The Historical Roots of a Distinct Nation
The foundational element often missed in the Kremlin’s narrative is that Ukraine is not a mere historical offshoot of Russia. Its journey to statehood began long before the rise of Muscovy.
Kyivan Rus': The Common Ancestor: The first major East Slavic state was Kyivan Rus' (9th to 13th centuries), with its capital in Kyiv. This medieval federation, which adopted Orthodox Christianity in 988, is a cornerstone of history for Ukrainians, Russians, and Belarusians. Moscow, founded in the 12th century, was a peripheral settlement at the time. When modern Russia claims Kyivan Rus' as its exclusive inheritance, it is effectively appropriating the cradle of Ukrainian civilization and denying Ukraine’s historical primacy in the region.
Divergent Paths: After the Mongol invasion of the 13th century, the lands of Kyivan Rus' were fractured. The north-eastern principalities, including Moscow, fell under Mongol rule (the "Tatar Yoke"), which heavily influenced its autocratic and centralized political culture. Meanwhile, the western and southern territories of Rus' (modern-day Ukraine) were incorporated into the Grand Duchy of Lithuania and later the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. This centuries-long separation meant that Ukrainian lands developed under a European legal and political system, fostering a distinct language, culture, and a tradition of Cossack self-governance that was fiercely resistant to external control, whether Polish or Russian.
Imperial Subjugation: The Cossack Hetmanate, a Ukrainian Cossack state, emerged in the 17th century. In 1654, seeking military support against Poland, Hetman Bohdan Khmelnytsky signed the Pereiaslav Agreement with the Tsardom of Moscow. This was intended as a military alliance between two partners, but Moscow increasingly interpreted it as an act of perpetual subjugation. Over the next centuries, the Russian Empire systematically dismantled Ukrainian autonomy, banning the Ukrainian language in print and public life (Ems Ukaz of 1876) and enforcing a policy of Russification, branding Ukraine as "Little Russia."
II. The Soviet Era: Formal Unity, Forced Assimilation
The 20th century brought new forms of control under the Soviet Union. Ukraine became a founding republic of the USSR in 1922, but this was a fig leaf of sovereignty.
The Holodomor: In 1932-33, Joseph Stalin’s policy of forced collectivization led to a man-made famine that killed millions of Ukrainians. This was not merely a tragic oversight but a deliberate act of terror to crush Ukrainian peasant resistance and nationalist spirit. The Holodomor is widely regarded by Ukraine and numerous countries as a genocide, a brutal attempt to break the backbone of the nation.
Political and Cultural Repression: The Soviet era was characterized by the relentless suppression of Ukrainian intellectuals, artists, and political dissidents. While the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic had a seat at the UN, all real power resided in Moscow. The Russian language was promoted as the language of state, progress, and the "Soviet people," while Ukrainian was often marginalized to a rural, folkloric status.
The Weight of History: Despite this oppression, a distinct Ukrainian identity persisted underground and in diaspora communities. The Chornobyl disaster of 1986, which occurred on Ukrainian soil and was catastrophically mishandled by the Soviet government, became a powerful symbol of Moscow’s disregard for its subjects and further galvanized national sentiment.
III. 1991: The Legal Break—A Vote for Independence
The collapse of the Soviet Union provided the historic opportunity for a legal and peaceful break. In a referendum on December 1, 1991, an astounding 92.3% of Ukrainian voters voted for independence. This vote was not a narrow ethnic split; it was a landslide across all regions, including areas with large Russian-speaking populations like Crimea and the Donbas. This moment was crucial—it was the democratic expression of the Ukrainian people’s desire to be a sovereign state, free from Moscow’s control.
The subsequent dissolution of the USSR was, in legal terms, the formal and mutually recognized break. Ukraine was recognized internationally, including by the Russian Federation under Boris Yeltsin, which accepted its new borders.
IV. The Post-Soviet Drift: The Unresolved Relationship
For the next two decades, Ukraine’s path wavered between East and West, reflecting an internal struggle over its identity and future.
The Pull of Europe: Many Ukrainians, particularly in the western and central regions, looked towards European integration as a path to modernization, democracy, and a definitive break from a corrupt and authoritarian post-Soviet model, which Russia increasingly embodied.
Russian Leverage and Influence: Russia never fully accepted Ukrainian sovereignty. It maintained influence through economic levers (cheap gas), political manipulation (supporting pro-Russian political parties and presidents), and the constant promotion of a narrative of shared history, culture, and "fraternal peoples." The presence of the Russian Black Sea Fleet in Sevastopol, Crimea, was a constant reminder of its lingering military presence.
The Orange Revolution (2004): A major turning point. When a fraudulent presidential election attempted to install the pro-Russian candidate Viktor Yanukovych, hundreds of thousands of Ukrainians protested for weeks, forcing a new vote that brought the pro-Western Viktor Yushchenko to power. This was a massive, peaceful popular revolt against Kremlin interference and a clear signal of Ukraine’s European aspirations.
V. The Point of Rupture: 2014 and the War for Europe’s Future
The final, violent break was triggered in late 2013 by President Yanukovych’s last-minute decision to abandon an Association Agreement with the European Union under intense pressure from Moscow. This sparked the Euromaidan Revolution (also known as the Revolution of Dignity).
For three months, Ukrainians from all walks of life protested in Kyiv’s Independence Square, demanding an end to corruption, closer ties with Europe, and Yanukovych’s resignation. The government’s violent crackdown, which killed over 100 protesters, only hardened their resolve. In February 2014, Yanukovych fled to Russia.
The Ukrainian people had once again decisively chosen a European future. For Vladimir Putin’s Russia, which views the loss of Ukraine as a catastrophic geopolitical defeat that invalidates its great-power status, this was a red line.
The Annexation of Crimea: In response, Russia launched a swift and covert military operation, seizing Ukraine’s Crimean Peninsula under the guise of "little green men" (soldiers without insignia). A sham referendum was held at gunpoint, and Russia formally annexed Crimea in March 2014. This was the first forcible redrawing of borders in Europe since WWII, a blatant violation of international law and countless treaties Russia had signed.
War in the Donbas: Almost immediately, Russia fomented and armed a separatist insurgency in Ukraine’s eastern Donbas region. It provided not only weapons but also regular Russian troops, sophisticated military equipment, and command-and-control. This hybrid war, which claimed over 14,000 lives between 2014 and early 2022, was Russia’s tool to destabilize Ukraine, prevent its Western integration, and maintain a lever of control.
VI. 2022: The Full-Scale Invasion and the Finality of the Break
The eight years of simmering conflict were a prelude. Despite the Minsk agreements aimed at a ceasefire, Ukraine continued its pro-Western trajectory, and its military, hardened by war, grew more capable. For Putin, the prospect of a successful, democratic, and European Ukraine on Russia’s border was an existential threat to his regime’s model of autocratic rule.
The full-scale invasion launched on February 24, 2022, was the ultimate attempt to reverse the verdict of 1991 by force. Its goal was to eradicate the Ukrainian state and identity entirely. However, it has achieved the exact opposite. The invasion has inflicted horrific suffering, but it has also:
1. Annihilated any remaining cultural or fraternal ties: Russian bombs have destroyed Ukrainian cities, theaters, and museums, killing tens of thousands. Any notion of "brotherly peoples" is now a grotesque memory.
2. Solidified Ukrainian National Identity: Resistance has become the unifying national project. The Ukrainian language and culture are now more assertive than at any point in modern history.
3. Made the Break Permanent and Irreversible: There is no scenario in which Ukraine, after such sacrifice, would ever voluntarily return to Russia’s sphere of influence. Its future is unambiguously tied to the West, with EU candidate status granted and NATO membership a stated goal.
Conclusion
Ukraine’s break from Russia is not a recent event but the final, violent chapter of a long historical process. It is the story of a nation that has fought for centuries to emerge from the shadow of its imperial neighbor. The democratic choice of the Ukrainian people in 1991 and again during the Euromaidan was met not with respect but with annexation, war, and ultimately a genocidal-scale invasion.
The rupture is now total and absolute. It is a break not just of political systems or alliances, but of civilizational choice. Ukraine has chosen the path of sovereignty, democracy, and Europe. Russia, through its brutal aggression, has chosen empire, autocracy, and isolation. The war today is not about causing the break; it is about Russia’s refusal to accept that the break, forged by Ukraine’s unbreakable will, happened long ago.
#Ukraine #Russia #USSR #SovietUnion