I recently presented a report at the EUROPAST International Conference on “The Past and Future of Public History,” held on Oct. 9-10, 2025, in Vilnius University, Lithuania. It was entitled: “To Discipline and Punish: A Punitive Turn in the Politics of Memory (Ukraine and Beyond, 2015 – 2025).”
The following is a summary of the main points.
- Ukraine currently leads Europe in the number of judicial decisions concerning violations of criminal statutes specifically designed to prohibit certain historical symbols.
- In terms of the letter of the law, the sanctions for breaching memory laws in Ukraine are among the most severe in Europe.
- The country is presently engaged in an existential war, a context that significantly shapes its approaches to mnemonic coercion and penal enforcement.
- Ukraine represents a particularly striking example of the implementation of memory legislation in its most radical form, orchestrated by a narrowly defined group of actors who capitalized on a unique confluence of circumstances.
Article 436-1 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine was introduced by the Party of Regions and Communists in January 2014, as part of the “dictatorial laws” package. It was aimed at combating the denial or justification of fascist crimes and neo-Nazi ideology as a part of a broader policy to discredit protesters, particularly radical right segment.
Then, in the 2015, the same article was utilized by those, against whom it was designed, to penalize “production, distribution, and public use of symbols of communist and national socialist (Nazi) totalitarian regimes, including in the form of souvenirs, public performance of the anthems of the USSR, the Ukrainian SSR (USSR) other Union and autonomous Soviet republics or their fragments throughout Ukraine, except as provided for in parts two and three of Article 4 of the Law of Ukraine “On the Condemnation of Communist and National Socialist (Nazi) Totalitarian Regimes in Ukraine and the Prohibition of Propaganda of Their Symbol.” Detailed references to the Communist symbols replaced references to SS formations and neo-Nazi symbols.
In May 2015, following the recommendations of the Venice Commission, a group of Ukrainian lawmakers introduced a bill proposing amendments to Article 436-1 aimed at decriminalizing activities related to the public display of the Communist symbols. However, the draft remained dormant for more than three years, as no one was willing to bring it before parliament for debate.
The proponents of punitive measures, for obvious reasons, showed little enthusiasm for revisiting the law, and the initiative ultimately lapsed. This legislative inertia highlighted the lack of institutional readiness to reconsider or soften the existing policy, even in the face of sustained legal and expert criticism.
Consequently, Article 436-1 remained in force in its original amended form, continuing to function as the primary legal instrument for implementing the symbolic and punitive aspects of Ukraine’s decommunization and de-Russification agenda.
Results
Criminal cases opened in 2015-2021 – 334. Ended with sentences – 24.
Criminal cases opened in 2022 – 2025 (May) – 896. Resulted in sentences – 307.
Actions punished: physical display of the banned symbols – T-shirts, banners, postcards, stickers, etc. (51 cases among analyzed), publications in social networks, and liking publications in social networks (228 cases among analyzed).
Social profile of defendants
Among 279 individuals under analysis, 124 were listed as unemployed or informally employed, 84 were pensioners, and 23 were persons with disabilities. Others: service workers, workers, petty businessmen, teachers, etc.
Majority of cases – public display of the symbols of the Communist regime. Display of Nazi symbols (neo-Nazi symbols are absent in the law) less than 10.
Mode of implementation
In the overwhelming majority of cases, defendants pleaded guilty, cooperated willingly with the prosecution, and demonstrated “sincere repentance” to the court. Typically, with the participation of a defense attorney (mostly appointed by the state), they entered into a plea agreement with the prosecution, acknowledging guilt and agreeing not to challenge the court’s verdict in the future. This scenario usually resulted in the replacement of prison sentences with probation terms of varying lengths, from one to three years.
The views expressed in this opinion article are the author’s and not necessarily those of Kyiv Post.