Authors

Discussion

This paper examines the contested representations of Symon Petliura, one of the most debated figures in modern Ukrainian history, across political discourse, historiography, and collective memory. Petliura, who rose to prominence during the revolutionary years of 1917–1920 and served as the head of the Directorate of the Ukrainian People’s Republic for a short period of time, has been vilified in Soviet propaganda as a counterrevolutionary “bourgeois nationalist” and as a traitor, while simultaneously being celebrated in nationalist thought as a symbol of independence and resistance.

The paper is structured in three parts. First, it analyses Soviet-era propaganda that cemented Petliura’s negative image. Second, it traces how Ukrainian historiography after World War II—particularly in émigré and diaspora scholarship—attempted to rehabilitate his image, and how these efforts were revised or contested in post-1991 debates. Finally, it explores Petliura’s ambiguous place in Ukraine’s contemporary politics of memory, where state narratives, academic debates, and public commemorations intersect, reflecting broader struggles over national identity and historical justice.

Drawing on discourse analysis of propaganda texts, films, émigré publications, historiographical debates, and public memory practices, the paper highlights how Petliura’s representations both mirror and shape nation-building and historical re-evaluation. As Yuliya Yurchuk has argued, Ukraine’s memory politics are part of a broader decolonisation process, seeking to distance national narratives from Soviet and Russian-centred histories. At the same time, as Georgiy Kasianov demonstrates, these politics are characterised by ongoing clashes between competing narratives, illustrating how a single figure can embody multiple, often conflicting, meanings.

This paper therefore analyses Petliura’s unresolved status in contemporary Ukrainian memory politics, including the role of external factors. The need to maintain constructive relations with Israel and to navigate European memory frameworks centred on Holocaust remembrance complicates efforts to canonise Petliura as a national hero. By integrating these dimensions, the study demonstrates how global memory politics intersect with local nation-building, revealing the tensions in shaping Ukrainian national memory and the challenges of decolonising historical narratives. Overall, the paper contributes to ongoing debates on memory, identity, and postcoloniality in Eastern Europe.