I had a fascinating conversation with Dr. Nicolai Petro, a prominent political scientist and Professor of Political Science at the University of Rhode Island. Professor Petro has written a fascinating book, “The Tragedy of Ukraine: What Classical Greek Tragedy Can Teach Us About Conflict Resolution.” This is a must-read for anyone interested in the origins of the Ukraine-Russia conflict as well as the details of Ukraine’s politics for generations.
The conflict in Ukraine can be viewed through the lens of classical Greek tragedy, where individuals unknowingly author their downfall. Ukraine’s turmoil stems from deep cultural divisions, primarily between western and eastern regions. Western Ukraine, historically part of the Austro-Hungarian and Polish territories, has long fostered a distinct national identity, while eastern Ukraine, largely Russian-speaking, shares deeper ties with Russia. These divergent identities have struggled to coexist. Historically, Ukrainian nationalism emerged in opposition—first to Poland, then the Soviet Union—suggesting that the movement has often relied on defining itself through enmity. The tragedy lies in failing to recognize this self-perpetuated conflict.
Origins of Ukrainian Nationalism
Ukrainian nationalism, rooted in early 20th-century émigré thought and funding, sought to forge a unified national identity by creating a state where that monoethnic identity could exist. In Western Ukraine, the vision of a nation-state typically had excluded Russian-speaking, Orthodox populations of central and eastern Ukraine. Nationalist efforts prioritized a narrow definition—Greek Catholic, Ukrainian-speaking, western-rooted—while marginalizing others. Internal divisions, betrayals, and competing visions of identity have plagued Ukraine’s history, revealing a deep struggle to reconcile regional diversity with an imposed, singular idea of what it means to be truly Ukrainian.
Thank you to all my subscribers for being part of World Affairs in Context. Your support makes the newsletter happen, and your questions, ideas, and suggestions inspire it. Please consider becoming a paid subscriber, which will help contribute to the resources needed to produce more content on the platform. If you’d like to make a one-time contribution, please do so via PayPal or Buy Me a Coffee.
Ukrainian Identity: Poland vs. Russia
Ukrainian identity has long been shaped by its complex relationship with both Russia and Poland. Historically, many Ukrainians identified as "maloros" or "Southern Russians," especially in central and eastern regions, where the Russian language and culture predominated. Western Ukrainian nationalism, influenced by Austro-Hungarian and Polish legacies, promoted a narrow identity centered on language, religion, and region. Post-Maidan governments increasingly advanced this Galician-centric nationalism, marginalizing other identities and minorities. The 2014 Maidan movement, seen by some as a nationalist coup, disrupted legal transitions of power and deepened societal divisions. These tensions reflect Ukraine’s unresolved struggle to define an inclusive national identity.
Post-Maidan Ukrainian Politics
The evolution of Ukrainian politics post-2014 reveals deep internal divisions shaped by historical, linguistic, and cultural differences. While President Poroshenko was democratically elected and initially recognized by Russia, his administration escalated tensions by redefining local unrest in Donbas as a war with Russia, abandoning early peace frameworks like the Minsk Accords. This shift coincided with the growing power of far-right nationalist movements, primarily rooted in Western Ukraine, which gained influence through foreign funding and the Maidan coup. These Western-funded groups promoted a narrow Galician identity and marginalized other Ukrainian identities, especially the predominantly Russian-speaking populations of eastern and southern Ukraine. Under President Zelensky, initially elected on a peace platform, media freedom and cultural pluralism have been severely restricted, further entrenching a hardline nationalist agenda. Independent voices and opposition media have been suppressed, while dissenting narratives are labeled pro-Russian. As the war continues, Zelensky’s legitimacy relies increasingly on nationalist factions who reject compromise. The result is a political environment hostile to the millions of Ukrainians identifying with the Malaros or Eastern Ukrainian identity. Without political pluralism or avenues for peaceful negotiation, Ukraine’s internal divisions risk becoming permanently entrenched, threatening the long-term stability and inclusiveness of the Ukrainian state.
A Path Toward Conflict Resolution
War sustains itself on hatred, but peace inevitably dissolves it, reopening human connections and long-held ties, particularly in Ukraine, where many have relatives in Russia. Over time, hostility fades, as seen in past conflicts like those between the U.S. and Mexico or post-WWII Europe. For Ukraine to prosper, reconciliation with Russia will likely be necessary. The current conflict stems not solely from Ukraine’s choices but also from NATO and EU policies that excluded Russia. A lasting peace may depend on Ukraine adopting a neutral stance, engaging both Europe and Russia independently, rather than aligning as an adversary. True sovereignty lies in balanced diplomacy.
Peace negotiations often appear stalled due to public posturing, but real progress happens quietly through back channels. Diplomatic theater—like symbolic disputes—masks ongoing bargaining. War and diplomacy coexist until both sides reach exhaustion or shifting interests favor peace. Ultimately, peace emerges when those profiting from war see more gain in its end.
📚 Order your copy of Professor Nicolai Petro's The Tragedy of Ukraine: https://www.amazon.com/Tragedy-Ukraine-Classical-Resolution-Contemporary-ebook/dp/B0BKXXSZG5?ref_=ast_author_mpb
Learn more about Dr. Nicolai Petro’s research here: https://www.npetro.net
Share this post