History of Ukraine

This video, titled “The History of Ukraine is Different than the History of Russia,” is one of my favorites.

History of Ukraine (Video)

The conflict between Russia and Ukraine cannot be understood without starting in the distant past.

In 988, Vladimir the Great was baptized in Chersonesus near today’s Sevastopol and brought Christianity to Kievan Rus, laying foundations claimed by Russians, Ukrainians, and Belarusians alike. In modern times, especially under Vladimir Putin, this legacy has been framed as central to Russian statehood, even though the medieval political center was Kyiv, not Moscow.

From there, historical paths began to diverge. While Muscovy consolidated power and expanded into an empire centered on Moscow, much of today’s Ukraine developed within the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, and southern regions were long shaped by the Crimean Khanate before later incorporation into the Russian Empire.

These different experiences mattered. They influenced legal traditions, religious structures, land ownership patterns, and political culture, creating regional diversity inside Ukraine and shaping different outlooks in Kyiv and Moscow.

Fast forward to the 20th century, and both countries were bound together inside the Soviet Union. When that union collapsed in 1991, Ukraine’s overwhelming vote for independence—including in Crimea—effectively ended the Soviet state and the imperial structure that had tied Moscow and Kyiv together.

Political independence, however, did not mean economic disentanglement. The Soviet system had deeply integrated industries, energy infrastructure, and defense production across republics, leaving both Russia and Ukraine dependent on shared pipelines, factories, and supply chains.

As Ukraine entered the 2000s, it faced a strategic choice between deeper integration with Europe or closer alignment with Russia.

That tension was reflected in domestic politics, particularly in the rivalry between Viktor Yanukovych and Yulia Tymoshenko, and in the 2004 Orange Revolution, which challenged disputed election results. Energy disputes with Russia, especially over gas pricing and contracts, exposed structural corruption and vulnerability within Ukraine’s economy.

By 2013, Ukraine had negotiated an association agreement with the European Union aimed at aligning its economy and legal system with European standards. When Yanukovych suspended plans to sign the deal under pressure from Moscow—linked to Russia’s Eurasian integration project—mass protests erupted in Kyiv in what became known as the Maidan movement.

The crisis escalated rapidly. After violence that killed around one hundred protesters and the collapse of Yanukovych’s government, Russia moved to seize Crimea in early 2014.

Russian forces, initially without insignia, took control of key sites, and Crimea was annexed soon after. Conflict then spread to eastern Ukraine, where Russia supported separatist entities in parts of Donetsk and Luhansk; the downing of Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 intensified international condemnation and triggered coordinated Western sanctions.

At this stage, the issue was no longer just about Ukraine’s internal direction. It became a broader European question: whether borders can be changed by force and whether sovereign states can freely choose their alliances.

Despite severe economic crisis and military weakness in 2014, Ukraine stabilized its institutions and held elections under Petro Poroshenko and subsequent leadership. Major reforms followed, including reductions in massive energy subsidies that had consumed roughly 7% of GDP and fueled corruption, as well as restructuring of the banking sector and gradual alignment with EU regulations.

This leads to the deeper dimension of the conflict. Beyond territory and trade, it reflects a clash between two models of order: one based on rules, sovereignty, and voluntary integration, and another that emphasizes historical entitlement and spheres of influence.

For that reason, the confrontation has persisted for years. Its long-term outcome will depend not only on military developments, but on Ukraine’s capacity for reform, Russia’s strategic evolution, and Europe’s commitment to a rules-based system.