Kyiv: War

Questions: How has war and violence shaped the history of Kyiv? What has been the impact on the city’s architecture and central square? How has Kyiv’s modern identity been defined by war, and what does war memory tell us about the legacy of the Soviet Union?

---

Kyiv has been a central hub of warfare for the majority of its history. Ukraine is still a young nation born of a Soviet legacy, but Kyiv is an ancient city, whose origins are at the center of the Kievan Rus (882-1240). With a complex timeline of exchanging rulership under different empires and powers, Kyiv’s history may be summarized by the numerous conflicts arising on its soil. This ranges from global scale warfare during WWII to recent civil wars and insurgencies. The violence experienced in Kyiv has had a major effect on the city’s architecture and treatment of war memory. Nowhere is this more aptly exemplified than in the central square Maidan Nezalezhnosti (Independence Square), a site which marks a shift from Kyiv as a prominent Soviet “regime city” to one built on a foundation of a uniquely Ukrainian identity. Through examining 20th century conflicts and the Maidan’s role at the center of them, one can see that modern warfare in Kyiv has been defined by a clash between past oppressive regimes and a desire to become independent.

The word “maidan” has origins in Persian and Arabic, later entering various Slavic languages to refer to a public space. However, the Ukrainian term has become shorthand for a gathering of people for public protest, and the Maidan (capital M) specifically refers to Kyiv’s Independence Square (​Cybriwsky 2014b, 270). The origins of Independence Square can be traced back to the Kyivan Rus, where there were once two central squares. One was located on the highest hill of the Upper Town, but was ultimately destroyed by the Mongol invasion in the late 18th century (Oliynyk 2015, 81). The other square survives into the present day, and stands on where the historic ravine and southern gate of the Kyivan Rus empire once stood. In fact, Kyiv’s main street which bisects the square – Khreshchatyk – gets its name from this ravine, due to the area being called the хрещатый яр (khreshchaty’ yar) in Ukrainian, or “the crossed ravine” (​Cybriwsky 2014b, 272).

The square cycled through many different names throughout the 20th century as a result of the changing of place names that followed changes in leadership.It was first officially established in 1876 and known as the Duma Square (“city council square”) during Kyiv’s tsarist years, and later renamed this during German occupation as well. After the October Revolution the square was then called the Soviet Square (1919-1935), the Kalinin Square (1935-1941, 1943-1977), and the Square of the October Revolution (1977-1991),before finally being titled Independence Square following Ukraine’s declaration as an independent nation in 1991 (​Cybriwsky 2014b, 272). The appearance of Duma Square was defined by its strictly administrative role for a Kyiv which functioned as a vassal city in the Russian Empire. Following Soviet takeover, the transformed Soviet Square changed in appearance during the interwar Stalinist period to include a “parade ground” for the military and multiple statues of Stalin (Oliynyk 2015, 83). However, this expansion was a mere fraction of what the square would grow to look like following German occupation during the Second World War.

Kyiv was a major victim during World War II, becoming the battleground for Soviet and German forces during the Battle of Kyiv in 1941 and 1943. In order to capture the city from German control, Soviets practiced a strict scorched earth policy, making sure anything that could possibly be of use to the enemy was systematically destroyed. The Red Army doused the city with explosives and Molotov cocktails to spur on mass destruction. They not only exploded infrastructure which could be useful to the Germans, but also destroyed food supplies, burned crops, and poisoned the water supply meant for Kyivan citizens. Kyivan prisons were burnt down with prisoners still inside, and the most sacred cathedral in Kyiv, the Dormition of Virgin Mary, was destroyed. By 1945, the death toll of people in Ukraine reached 13.6 million, with Kyiv making up the greatest number of victims (Yukhnovskyi 2010, 121).

David Stahel, a historian of German military history, comments that the Battles of Kyiv were unusually crude in how foolishly the Soviets behaved when seemingly protecting the land. The damage to the city was demonstrative of Stalin’s complete disregard for elementary military strategy (Stahel 2011, 347). This embittered Kyivan citizens, who expressed vitriol towards the Stalin regime. “They left our children without bread, to starve to death, but force us to defend Stalin and his commissars,” one soldier remarked, although dissent among the people did not amount to a full revolution until decades later (Stahel 2011, 269).

Historian Dr. Martin Blackwell defines Kyiv’s post-war role as that of a “regime city,” with Nikita Khrushchev and other leaders in the mid-1940s seeking to remake what was left of a war-torn Kyiv into a greater representation of industrialization (Blackwell 2016, 28). Roman Cybriwsky, a historian and urban studies professor specializing in Kyiv, also writes on the development of Independence Square as it was reconstructed post-WWII. In 1943, to boost public morale, the newly renamed Kalinin Square was widened and fitted with monuments, rows of trees, fountains, and other decorative columns or domes to legitimize future Soviet authority (Cybriwsky 2014b, 273). The square was a quintessentially Stalinist piece of architecture, with massive courtyards for revolutions to assemble in, and imposing statues of Lenin and other Soviet party members to revere (Blackwell 2016, 136). Blackwell concludes that Soviet authorities believed they could put Kyiv on the road to modernity quicker than anyone else. In the process, authorities carelessly ignored mass corruption, starvation, and economic devastation from the return of a quarter million displaced people (Blackwell 2016, 188-9).

Such an approach was unsuccessful, and the anger of Kyivan people towards their authorities would only grow deeper following the second half of the 20th century. Following Ukraine’s independence, it quickly became clear to the new post-Soviet leadership that the open, expansive nature of Independence Square would make it far too easy for the public to rebel (Oliynyk 2015, 86). Despite being designed to carry out a Soviet legacy, the central square ultimately became a host to anti-Soviet protest movements, first starting during student demonstrations in the 1990s, gaining momentum during the 2004 Orange Revolution, and finally boiling over with warfare breaking out during the Maidan Massacre of 2014.

Olena Oliynyk writes about the reconstruction of Independence Square in 2000, with Leonid Kuchma responding to mass student protests by making the square unfit for political gatherings. The territory was cut up into smaller areas, given several shopping malls, and further constructed underground to house more commercial centers and parking lots. Fountains were dismantled and kitsch decorations covered past elegant designs, thoroughly transforming the square into a recreational or commercial space. Although post-independence Kyiv gradually grew agitated from Russian-Ukrainian ideological conflict, this was not initially reflected in the architecture of the square (Oliynyk 2015, 87). By the 2000s, the square was known for walkways, cafes, and other outside eateries for tourists and residents alike. Souvenir vendors would sell their wares, costumed characters would take photographers with visitors, and many staged concerts would take place (Cybriwsky 2014b, 275-776). 

However, this “politics-free” cosmetic redesign did not stop young people from making their voices heard. An outburst of resentment would lead to the Orange Revolution in 2004, and the square’s atmosphere would shift in tone into a place of protest. Adrian Karatnycky, a reporter present at the Orange Revolution, posits that although violence in Kyiv had historically been sparked by state agents, protests at Maidan ushered in a modern era of Ukrainian self-expression and the emergence of a stable new European democracy (Karatnycky 2005, 9). Then, in 2014, Independence Square became the host of the now infamous Euromaidan wave of civil unrest and demonstrations in the center of Kyiv. Although hundreds of protesters would be killed and thousands more injured, the Maidan protests became a clear turning point for Kyiv away from a Russian “regime city.”

 Kyiv is a city consumed with imagery and spaces built to contain the revered and traumatic memory of war. The most iconic war memorial is that of the “Mother of the Fatherland”, an enormous 60-meter statue which celebrates victory during the second World War (Cybriwsky 2014a, 133). In the modern era, it can be said that Maidan itself has become a triumphant tribute to an independent Ukraine, and a reminder that political action will not be stopped even if a glossy, artificially jovial coat is painted on the central square.

Although eventually rebuilt, the blasted rubble remains of Maidan also brought along more destruction in the form of the forceful removal of statues and monuments with any connection to Soviet themes or figures. Statues began to be toppled by angry mobs in December of 2013, and Soviet imagery became altogether illegal following the main riots. Countless statues of Lenin were toppled across the country immediately in response to the protests (van der Pijl 2018, 83). In Maidan, a bust of Karl Marx and the Monument of the Great October Revolution (a statue of Lenin), some of its most iconic imagery, were destroyed in a symbolic rejection of Soviet views.

Perhaps the most tangible aspect of war memory, or rather selective memory, is that of words and names. The practice of shifting names for prominent squares, streets, and landmarks in Kyiv has always been used to reflect distinct periods in time. This is most clear with Maidan itself, which constantly changed names throughout the 20th century. The landscape of Kyiv slowly began to change following 1991, as the Museum of Lenin turned into the Ukrainian House, the Red Square to the Contract Square, and the October Revolution Square to Independence Square (Maidan Nezalezhnosti) (​​Cybriwsky 2014, 133). Post-2014, the Maidan Massacre has sped up the process of politically re-naming other architecture and signage. Alongside monuments, any place names alluding to Soviet legacy are now banned. The area by Maidan and its adjoining Krushevky Street was designated a large memorial site titled the “Territory of Dignity”. Finally, the word “Maidan” itself has transformed into a term alluding to national identification and remembrance. (Oliynyk 2015, 90). Warfare and everyday life in Kyiv are now irrevocably tethered. Architecture is gone, childhood landmarks have unfamiliar names, and the heart of the city, the city square, can no longer be discussed in apolitical terms.

Bibliography

Blackwell, Martin J. Kyiv as Regime City: The Return of Soviet Power after Nazi Occupation, NED-New edition, Boydell & Brewer, 2016.

​Cybriwsky, Roman Adrian. “Historical Memory.” Kyiv, Ukraine: The City of Domes and
Demons from the Collapse of Socialism to the Mass Uprising of 2013-2014. Amsterdam University Press, 2014a, pp. 129–50.

Cybriwsky, Roman Adrian. “Kyiv’s Maidan: From Duma Square to Sacred Space.” Eurasian Geography and Economics, vol. 55, no. 3, 2014b, pp. 270–285.

Karatnycky, Adrian. “Letter from Kiev: On Independence Square.” The American Scholar, vol. 74, no. 2, The Phi Beta Kappa Society, 2005, pp. 6–9.

Kyivska Pravda, 9 January 1945, p. 2; 12 January 1945, p. 1.

Oliynyk, Olena. “The Architectural Image of Kiev’s Central Square as a Symbol of National Identity.” De Urbanitate: Tales of Urban Lives and Spaces no. 3, 2015, pp. 81-92.

Stahel, David. “Slaughter in the Ukraine.” Kiev 1941 : Hitler’s Battle for Supremacy in the East, Cambridge University Press, 2011. ProQuest Ebook Central.

van der Pijl, Kees. “From the Maidan Revolt to Regime Change.” Flight MH17, Ukraine and the New Cold War: Prism of Disaster, Manchester University Press, 2018, pp. 69–98, http://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctv18b5nzn.8.

Yukhnovskyi, Ihor. “Session II. Crimes Committed by Communist Regimes in the Former Soviet Union; The Crimes of the Communist Regime in Ukraine.” International Conference Crimes of the Communist Regimes: an Assessment by Historians and Legal Experts, Institute for the Study of Totalitarian Regimes, Feb. 2010, https://www.ustrcr.cz/data/pdf/publikace/sborniky/crime/sbornik.pdf.