In 2014, Russia’s occupation of Crimea was accompanied by an extensive information campaign aimed at mitigating international condemnation. A central element of this campaign was the deployment of historical narratives claiming Crimea’s longstanding ties to or belonging to Russia. These narratives emphasized Russia’s role as the legitimate successor to Kyivan Rus and positioned Crimea as a sacred site of Christianization. Furthermore, they portrayed Crimea’s history as predominantly Russian, with the temporary exception of the period leading up to Russia’s annexation of Crimea in the 18th century. These narratives were used to support propaganda suggesting that the majority of Crimean residents supported Russia’s attempted annexation, thereby influencing international opinion.

In contrast, since Ukraine’s independence in 1991, scholars have worked to distance Ukraine’s historical narratives from Soviet imperial frameworks. However, Ukrainian historiography has primarily focused on ethnic Ukrainian perspectives, sidelining Crimea as a peripheral topic. This marginalization stemmed from perceptions of Crimea as an “other” rather than an integral part of Ukrainian history. Consequently, the deconstruction of Soviet-era narratives about Crimea lagged behind efforts to reevaluate broader Ukrainian history. As a result, many Soviet-influenced perspectives on Crimea persisted uncritically within Ukrainian society.

Russia’s 2014 occupation of Crimea served as a wake-up call, prompting Ukrainian society to critically examine Russian-imposed narratives about the peninsula. This led to growing awareness of the colonial and imperialist elements embedded in these narratives. Over the past decade, Ukrainian scholars have actively worked to reconstruct Crimea’s history from a decolonial perspective. This effort has been fueled by increased interest in Crimea’s past and its role within Ukraine’s civic identity. The focus has shifted from viewing Crimea as an external entity to recognizing it as an integral part of Ukraine’s historical and cultural landscape.

Ukraine’s response to Russia’s aggression has also catalyzed broader changes in its national identity. The concept of a civic Ukrainian identity has expanded beyond ethnic definitions, encompassing diverse groups, including the Crimean Tatars. This inclusivity has heightened interest in the history of the Crimean Khanate, which is now being framed as an integral component of Ukraine’s historical narrative. In educational contexts, Crimean entities are no longer portrayed as foreign but rather as part of Ukraine’s shared heritage.

The ongoing reconstruction of Crimea’s history signifies a departure from ethnocentric historiography. While elements related to Russia and its colonial legacy are gradually being scrutinized or rejected, this process has also encouraged a more inclusive understanding of Ukraine’s multicultural past. If successful, this integration of Crimea’s history into Ukraine’s national narrative could serve as a model for incorporating the histories of other ethnic minorities. Such an approach would demonstrate the adaptability and inclusiveness of Ukraine’s national historiography, contributing to a broader understanding of its complex and diverse identity.

In summary, Ukraine’s efforts to decolonize Crimea’s history and integrate it into its national narrative reflect a broader transformation driven by resistance to Russian aggression. This process not only redefines Ukraine’s relationship with Crimea but also challenges longstanding imperial narratives, fostering a more inclusive and pluralistic vision of Ukrainian history and identity.

The perspective of a split of modern Ukraine into the East (Donbass) and the West (the rest) remains one of the most pressing issues in the discussions over pessimistic scenarios of the current unfolding crisis. While the US and the EU have imposed an array of sanctions on Russia in response to the annexation of Crimea and the crisis in the Donbass region, the first Minsk ceasefire has failed on the ground. From this point of view, this study aims, firstly, to clarify the actual conditions that explain the so called “east- west division” in modern Ukraine, based on an analysis of previous research and qualitative data, and putting a particular focus on the timeframe from Euromaidan to the war in Donbass. In the following section, this study aims to explore the actual conditions prevailing in Ukrainian society and in people’s minds as a result of the changing dynamics themselves, using reference data from the Kyiv International Institution of Sociology and the Razumkov Center, in addition to the questionnaire survey that was conducted by the author.

The actual information provided by statistics and sociological research indicates that the issue of the country’s split is a kind of myth and is basically a product of an artificial concept inspired mainly by both internal and external political actors. In other words, the division in Ukraine stems from political struggles rather than an east-west divided society originating in the cleavage of Ukraine as well as in Europe and Russia. Indeed, at the time of the Euromaidan demonstrations in Kyiv, protestors made it clear that the challenge was not between one region and another, but between the corrupt elites and the people, whatever region they are from. It is obvious that Euromaidan, in essence, was aimed at achieving the drastic political reforms, however, the Crimean and Donbass crisis should be defined as a political phenomenon, which includes the external factors.

Although the current situation should be defined using the above-mentioned elements, some analysts still argue that the crisis has exposed deep divisions in Ukrainian society between the European-oriented west and the Russian-oriented east. However, this understanding is not adequate, and it maybe more correct to state that no single factor can capture or explain this crisis. What is happening in Ukraine is complicated and is driven by many factors. This means that we should take into consideration changes in the social environment of Ukraine as well as the other factors that exists in Ukrainian society and that caused the “division”. In this process, it becomes clear that the consciousness of civil society has produced some positive changes in demonstrating a sense of solidarity. On the other hand, political and economic issues significantly influence the Ukrainian society, and they are the conceivable cause of this divided society. Nevertheless, this study is still ongoing and needs further consideration before revealing what the causal co-relations and its final conclusions are.