1. Introduction Memory politics of the Ukrainian government after Euromaidan was one of the most discussed topics by scholars, journalists, Ukrainian and foreign politi- cians, local and national activists. Although this issue was not identified by citizens as the most important for them (Kulyk, 2017), decommunization was one of the topics raised during presidential campaigns (Balacuk, 2019). In this research, the data from 6 in- depth interviews conducted in August – December 2019 in Kharkiv with local experts and activists fol- lowing the previously prepared questionnaire is used. Even though the experts selected for inter- views work in various fields1, their opinions certainly reflect only certain narratives. It also may differ from the diversity of opinions of Kharkiv city dwellers and the residents of General Grigorenko/Marshal Zhu- kov Avenue, which is discussed in this article. Thus, the main tasks of the research are: 1. To analyze how completed in the opinion of the central authorities decommunization process 1 Academia, art, and architecture, public administration, ed- ucation, voluntary organization. Some of them are organizers of the local Euromaidan and Equality Parade. Journal of Geography, Politics and Society 2020, 10(3), 55–64 https://doi.org/10.26881/jpgs.2020.3.06 EXPERIENCE OF IMPLEMENTING DECOMMUNIZATION LAWS IN EASTERN UKRAINE: A KHARKIV CASE Denys Kutsenko Department of Political Science, Pultusk Academy of Humanities, Vistula Group of Universities, Mickiewicza 36B, 06-100 Pułtusk, Poland, ORCID: ORCID: 0000- 0002-9839-4292 e-mail: denyskutsenko1989@gmail.com Citation Kutsenko D., 2020, Experience of implementing decommunization laws in Eastern Ukraine: a Kharkiv case, Journal of Geogra- phy, Politics and Society, 10(3), 55–64. Abstract The article deals with an instrumental use of the national legislation by the local authorities in Kharkiv, the second-largest city in Ukraine and shows how the shortcomings in the national legislation on the politics of memory can be used by the local political elites of “borderland city” in an attempt to raise the rating and/or to mobilize the electorate before the elections. Con- sequently, several interviews with local experts and activists were conducted in 2019, and qualitative data analysis was made for the transcribed texts as well as a short review of other papers on the subject. Also, the article shows how the local court can accelerate the process of depriving a historical building of the status of an architectural monument using decommunization laws. The study confirms the existence of serious polarization in Ukrainian society and the superficial nature of decommuniza- tion (started in 2015), which stimulates the deepening of such polarization. Key words decommunization, Ukraine, Kharkiv, politics of memory. Received: 01 June 2020 Accepted: 30 August 2020 Published: 30 September 2020 56 Denys Kutsenko was instrumentalized by local elites in Eastern Ukraine. 2. To analyze how decommunization laws were used for corporate business interests in Kharkiv. The primary method for this research is the analysis of decisions made by the local authorities and courts in Kharkiv as well as qualitative analysis of interviews with experts. 2. Decommunization in Ukraine and Kharkiv Oleksandr Grytsenko made an in-depth analysis of the decommunization process in his book “Decom- munization in Ukraine as a public policy and as a cul- tural phenomenon” (Grytsenko, 2019). He showed alternative ways of solving problems, which decom- munization dealt with (leave it as it is, liberal alter- native, radical alternative) as well as presented opin- ions of some critics of Ukrainian historical politics. In the second part of his book, O. Grytsenko researched decommunization as a socio-cultural process. Geor- gy Kasianov showed the image of Ukrainian histori- cal politics from the 1990s to 2010s in his fundamen- tal monography “Past Continuous: Historical Policy 1980–2000: Ukraine and its Neighbours” (Kasianov, 2018). As local phenomena, decommunization was described in collective work “Politics and Memory. Dnipro – Zaporizhzhya – Odesa – Kharkiv. From the 1990s till today” (Gaidai et al. (eds.), 2018). The au- thors underlined purposes and attempts of local au- thorities to make Kharkiv a “bourgeois” city, where markers of its proletarian character from soviet times without being noticed were removed (Gaidai et al. (eds.), 2018, pp. 84–88)2. Some toponymic changes made in Kharkiv, their qualitative and quantitative characteristics were ex- plored by M. Takhtaulova (2017), a scholar and activ- ist of the local Toponymic group during the decom- munization process, and from June 2019 a Head of the Kharkiv department of the Institute of National Memory (North-East Territorial Department) (U Hark- ovi..., 2019). As M. Takhtaulova showed it, Kharkiv urban toponymic space has not changed much after 1991, because local authorities, as well as local citi- zens, did not consider the Soviet monuments and the Soviet toponyms as a strange marker of occupation or colonizer. Over time, the Soviet monuments be- came almost invisible, and the Soviet names of urban objects lost their “semantic sense” (Gaidai et al. (eds.), 2 Of course, both the proletarian and revolutionary charac- ter of Kharkiv in Soviet time, as well as its bourgeois charac- ter after 1991, was rather artificial and did not represent the whole image of this east-Ukrainian city. 2018, p. 84). Of course, that changed in 2014, when anti-maidan protesters3, as well as those, who sup- ported the federalization of Ukraine (or supporters of proclamation so-called “people’s republics,” or sup- porters of succession to Russian Federation), started to use the Soviet symbols and monuments as their markers and places where they manifested their will- ings (Kozachenko, 2019). One of the reactions of the Ukrainian government was decommunization, which started with the adoption of decommunization laws by the Ukrainian Parliament on April 9, 20154. Ac- cording to O. Grytsenko, decommunization was “all Ukrainian ritualized campaign of symbolic liberation from the burden of the Soviet totalitarian past” (Gryt- senko, 2019, p. 317). As O. Grytsenko pointed out, there were four groups of main “decommunization narratives,” including the purification of Ukraine, re- gional (decentralized) narrative, opposition narrative of “Banderaization” of Ukraine, and liberal narrative. In this article, the local narrative in the city of Kharkiv is analyzed, where, in O. Grytsenko terms, “the patri- otic activists have long-lasting experience of not too strong support of Ukrainization [...] efforts from the capital” (Grytsenko, 2019, p. 209). O. Grytsenko shows and considers the efforts of local activists, who sup- ported decommunization and make projects of re- naming urbanonyms (like the Kharkiv Toponymic Group) as was coveted for the Ukrainian state and should be nationalized. Other prominent Ukrainian scholars, such as M.  Minakov and G. Kasianov (mentioned in Gryt- senko’s work5), criticized decommunization and con- 3 Anti-maidan protest in 2013 were organized by the Party of Regions to show mass support of President Yanukovych (who was honorary chairman of the Party), but from February 2014 this movement “suddenly acquired a powerful grass- roots dynamic in regions in south-eastern Ukraine” (Ishchen- ko, 2016, p. 9). 4 Spontaneous decommunization in Kharkiv started earlier, with leninopad, and demolishing of the Soviet monuments took place. The names of these laws (the English translation cited from Grytsenko, 2019): On the Legal Status and Honour- ing the Memory of Fighters for Ukraine’s Independence in the Twentieth Century (No. 314-VIII), On Perpetuation of the Victory over Nazism in World War II of 1939-1945 (No. 315-VIII), On Ac- cess to Archives of Repressive Agencies of the Totalitarian Com- munist Regime of 1917-1991 (No. 316-VIII), On the Condemna- tion of the Communist and National Socialist (Nazi) Regimes, and Prohibition of Propaganda of Their Symbols (No. 317-VIII). 5 O. Grytsenko did not mention left critics of historical poli- tics in Ukraine after 2014. Some criticists can be included to one of the narratives, defined by the author, but despite the fact that left-wing in the Ukrainian public policy is rather mar- ginalized, the academic and publicist achievements of left in- tellectuals should be represented in analysis of the memory politics in Ukraine (Serhiienko, 2017). Experience of implementing decommunization laws in Eastern Ukraine: a Kharkiv case 57 sidered it as “an attempt to create a constitutionally barred ideological monopoly” (Minakov, 2019); also “anticommunist iconoclasm reminds Bolshevik ec- stasy in the destruction of monuments of autocracy, “decommunization” of topography is the flip side of its “communization” (Kasianov, 2016). The Kharkiv Toponymic Group was created af- ter adopting and signing decommunization laws in 2015. The activists from this group were the most ac- tive among other NGO actors of decommunization, and they made their project of renaming and sent it to the city council, which had to provide decommu- nization in the city. As dominated by the former Par- ty of Regions6 members with the majority, totally de- pended on the city mayor Gennady Kernes, the city council was rather “decommunization-skeptic,” what has been confirmed by the way in which decommu- nization was represented in the city-owned media as well as in the scandals, provoked by city authorities during a public discussion on the city and district level (Kutsenko, 2018). However, decommunization in Kharkiv took place7 (221 toponyms changed their names by the decision of the City council and the City mayor, and two toponyms, seven administrative districts and six subway stations by the decision of the Head of the Oblast (Regional) Administration) (Takhtaulova, 2017), and that were admitted even by the members of the Kharkiv Toponymic Group (V Har’kove..., 2016). Another decommunization analysis was present- ed by O. Gnatiuk (2018). Despite not some ideologi- cal bias, Oleksiy Gnatiuk showed, using data on re- naming in 36 Ukrainian cities, that “decommunized” Kharkiv is not at any of the ideological poles. Moreo- ver, somewhere in the Kharkiv oblast (even though the only city of the region under this study was Kharkiv), there are fault lines between “nationalistic Ukraine,” “Cossack Ukraine” and “post-Soviet Ukraine.” Of course, the reinforcement of Gnatiuk’s thesis re- quired the study of the whole array of names in large and medium-sized cities of Slobozhanshchyna and Donbas. Presenting an in-depth sociological analysis of renaming in Kharkiv, O. Golikov (2020) criticized Takhtaulova’s conclusions regarding decommuni- zation in Kharkiv and showed that the authors of 6 Propresident Party of Regions had the largest fraction in the Ukrainian Parliament and formed the Ukrainian Govern- ment in 2010–2014 (Kuzio, 2015). Expert 3 confirms that the local structures of the Party of Regions were involved in the beating of the local activists and attacks on the Euromaydan in Kharkiv. 7 An interactive map of decommunization in Kharkiv can be found at https://allkharkov.ua/news/state/nteraktivna-karta- dekomynzac-harkvsko-toponmki.html normative acts should be separated in order to ana- lyze the renaming process, taking into account their source of legitimacy. Since the President appoints the head of the Oblast Administration (governor), the sources of legitimization are different for the City Council, the city mayor and the governor. The heads of the Oblast Administration are not inclined to rely on public opinion, but pursue the policy of the cen- tre in the region. As O. Golikov (2020) has shown, that was the reason the renaming carried out by the City Council is less conflictual and more elaborated and justified for its residents. Moreover, the degree of localization of the renaming carried out by the Oblast Administration is lower in comparison with the City Council. However, there was a conflict dur- ing the decommunization process between the City Council on the one hand and the activists and the Oblast Administration on the other. Both the interviewed experts and one of the spe- cialists of the regional department of the Institute of National Memory (Zub, 2016) pointed out that the majority of the city residents did not show much in- terest in decommunization. However, speaking about decommunization in Kharkiv Expert 1 (E1) said: People just do not attach importance to renaming, that is the very weakness of decommunization because it does not explain at all who these people were, whose names we removed from the map. 3. Other decommunization actors The complete list of historical political actors was suggested by G. Kasianov (2016), and among others, there are NGOs. Not less than 2000 non-government actors took part in historical politics directly or indi- rectly. It is impossible to mention all Kharkiv out of the government decommunization actors; however, after the process’ period (for the City Council – No- vember 21, 2015, for the city mayor – February 21, 2016, for the oblast administration – summer 2016), when all toponyms had to be changed as well as the monuments, memorial plaques had to be removed, the local right-radical activists such as The Right-Wing youth of the National Liberation Movement “Right sector”– Kharkiv region, NGO “Svitanok,” spearhead- ed by the former Euromaidan activist, started to gather information about the non-decommunized objects. They removed or forced the local authorities to remove the Soviet symbols or memorial plaques to people that were taken to the list of the Institute of National Memory, or should be removed in their 58 Denys Kutsenko opinion8. The activists (and the Kharkiv Toponymic Group) used the narrative of “purification of Ukraine” from communist and sometimes colonial, imperial, and Russian legacy (and that expanded the scope of the decommunization law (Riabchuk, 2016)). The local right-wing forces participated in the policy of memory not only by destroying the monu- ments and memorial plaques but also by installing new monuments. “Eastern corps” in 2014 installed in the city center the Cossack Sirko9 monument, and in 2017 new Sirko monument was unveiled in the pres- ence of the city mayor Kernes and Oleg Shyriayev, the head of “Eastern Corps.” Kernes “took the oppor- tunity to show his loyalty to the central authorities, who, despite Maidan demands, compromised with the old local elites” (Gaidai et al. (eds.), 2018, p. 67). Eastern Corps, now the National Police Company, founded mainly by the members of the neo-nazi group “Patriot of Ukraine” (Shekhovtsov, 2020) in 2014. After May 2019, when Zelensky won presiden- tial elections in Ukraine, Kernes was not required to show loyalty and acceptance of Poroshenko’s iden- tity politics (of which decommunization was part), so he could openly start a new little memory war. 4. A case of Marshal Zhukov Avenue After the first wave of decommunization, when the City Council adopted toponymic changes, the Oblast Administration (headed by Igor Raynin) also renamed some urbanonyms. One of the Oblast Ad- ministration decision was to change the name of Marshal Zhukov Avenue to General Grigorenko10 Av- enue. As per O. Grytsenko (2019), Marshall Zhukov as a person was not subject to the law because he took part in the resistance and expulsion of Nazis from the territory of Ukraine (Grytsenko, 2019, pp. 137, 148). At the same time, he was included to the list by UINM, and although this list was recommenda- tory, the heads of the Oblast Administrations in dif- ferent regions of Ukraine interpreted it as obligatory 8 Sometimes, the excessive activity of these groups caused indignation among the members of the Kharkiv Toponymical group (and later the specialists of the local branch of the In- stitute of National Memory), for example, when the evidence and artefacts of Kharkiv binding to the revolutionary events of 1917–1920 were destroyed (see more at https://www.face- book.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=956566891157844& id=100004136254577). 9 Ivan Sirko (1605(?)–1680) Ukrainian Cossack leader, Kosho- vyi Otaman of the Zaporizhian Host. 10 General Petro Grigorenko (1907–1987) was a dissident and writer, one of the founders of the Moscow Helsinki Group and Ukrainian Helsinki Group. (Grytsenko, 2019; Golikov, 2020) and changed the street names according to this list. After that renam- ing, Vitalii Khomutynnik, a businessman, a Member of Parliament and co-head of the same party which the mayor Kernes belonged to (Vidrodzhennya), sent an address to the President Administration with the proposition to return Marshal Zhukov’s name to the avenue and that was actively promoted by the city-owned press (V AP..., 2016) and television (Pros- pektu..., 2016). Marshal Zhukov Avenue was not the histori- cal name of the street that appeared in this area of Kharkiv in the 60s (fig. 1). Until 1982, that was Sta- dionna Street (Stadium Street), later 60-littya SRSR Street (60 Years of the USSR Street), and Marshal Zhu- kov Avenue since 1990 (Kudelko (ed.), 2011). In 1995, next to the District Administration, a Zhukov’s mon- ument was revealed, and in 1997, a Zhukov’s monu- ment appeared in the underground station named “Komsomolska” before 1994, and from May 1994 – Marshal Zhukov11 (Har’kovskij Enciklopedičeskij Slo- var’, 2014, p. 251). In 2019 the parliamentary elections were held, and the mayor of Kharkiv, Gennady Kernes, in sup- port the candidates from the Opposition Bloc in the parliamentary elections, decided to use the tacit op- position of Kharkiv citizens to decommunization, publicly urging citizens to sign a petition to return General Grigorenko Avenue the name of Marshal Zhukov (Commotion..., 2019). The petition registered on a site of the City Council on May 8, 2019, and on May 10, it collected the necessary 5000 votes. After that, on June 19, the question of renaming General Grigorenko Avenue to Marshal Zhukov Avenue was brought on the session of the City Council. Despite the violations and the protest of the opposition deputies, as well as the protest near the building of the City Council, the majority decided to return the name of Zhukov Avenue, as well as to give the name of General Grigorenko to the nameless street in the city center (Verhom..., 2019). As early as on June 2, during the party congress with the participation of the mayor of the city in the Kharkiv Sports Palace which is located on the General Grigorenko/Mar- shal Zhukov Avenue, the radical activists (Freikorps, that have previously involved in attacks on equality parade in Kharkiv (Interview with Expert 6, Decem- ber 2019, Kharkiv), Right Sector, NGO Svitanok, etc. (Troubled..., 2019) demolished the Zhukov’s monu- ment. However, on July 10, the monument was re- stored. Parliamentary elections took place in Ukraine 11 Coincidentally, in Moscow, a first Zhukov’s monument also was revealed in 1995 due to the 50th anniversary of the victory in WWII. Experience of implementing decommunization laws in Eastern Ukraine: a Kharkiv case 59 on July 21, 2019, and a single candidate, supported in Kharkiv by Gennady Kernes, did not get into parliament. Reacting to the renaming of the avenue, the ac- tivists began to tear down the signs with the new name, but this forced community services to hang signs with the name of the street at an altitude ac- cessible only if special equipment was available (fig. 2) (Barkov, 2019). After the City Council decided to rename the street, the City Council deputy Ihor Cherniak and the Regional Council deputy Dmytro Bulakh appealed to the Kharkiv District Administrative Court (Mirosh- nichenko, 2019), which ruled on September 10 that the City Council’s decision to rename the street was illegal. Also, the Institute of National Memory issued a statement according to which the Ukrainian legis- lation forbids to call objects of toponymy by Zhuk- ov’s name (Z Žukovim..., 2019). However, the city au- thorities appealed and organized online voting on the website of the City Council, according to which 86% voted for turning the name of Zhukov Avenue. On February 26, 2020, the street again was renamed from General Grigorenko Avenue to Marshal Zhukov Avenue (Prospektu..., 2020). The new head of the Na- tional Institute of Memory Anton Drobovych stated that voting on the website of the mayor’s office was rigged (U Harkovi..., 2020). However, the announce- ment of the UINM about the second renaming was more restrained in comparison with the previous one and stated not only that the decision was against the law, but also that the Kharkiv authorities „are engaged in speculation and opposition of two war veterans - Petro Grigorenko and (...) marshal Zhukov” (Zaâva..., 2020), while the statement of January 27, 2020, mentions that such a decision „contradicts the call of the President to use when naming articles that unite, rather than separate Ukrainians” (Inicia- tiva..., 2020). One of the UINM statements also refers to a press conference members of the Demsokyra party12, in which they explain why the online voting was rigged (Mis’krada..., 2019). While in 2014–2019 (and during Yushchenko presidency), there was an antagonism between the regional and the city au- thorities regarding the policy of memory in the region (Zhurzhenko, 2016), now the Oblast State Administration has limited itself to stating that the local governments, when deciding on the renam- ing, should “act in strict compliance with the current legislation” (Rišennya..., 2019). President Zelensky called on Kernes to become an arbiter in a dispute over the name of the avenue (Lashenko, 2019). Thus, the Oblast State Administration ceased to be a sub- ject of memory policy in the region, at least for a cer- tain period, and the city authorities started the new memory war with the activists. 12 Activists from Demsokyra also participated in pulling down the Zhukov’s monument in June, some experts attrib- ute it to President Poroshenko (Operaciâ..., 2019). Fig. 1. Old inscription with the street name, August 2019 Source: image by Denys Kutsenko. 60 Denys Kutsenko When asked why Kernes initiated the renam- ing of the avenue and provoked the demolition of the Zhukov monument, all the interviewed experts agreed that this was done to mobilize the electorate before the elections. E1 (historian, publicist, translator): Here is the latest story with Zhukov, very revealing. It is a vivid example of a very unhealthy climate that has de- veloped in the last two or three years of Poroshenko’s presidency. That is when all failures and low ratings should have been compensated by Russophobic and So- vietophobic hysteria, and here we are. And then a very clear signal was given with the renaming of the avenue in Kyiv after Bandera. Well, I understand that the vast major- ity of people involved in the renaming, which took place in a strange procedural form, and those who welcomed it very badly imagine who these people were, what they were doing there. For them, these are just symbols of the struggle against Russia, i.e. we renamed the avenue we spit in Moscow’s face. E2 (political scientist): Humanitarian manipulation and humanitarian specula- tion on history, language, and cultural identities remain one of the main instruments of mobilization in our policy. We now have the primary phenomenon of Zelensky, who was able to unite both anti-maidan and promaidan pub- lics in principle. I think that we will return to this binary schism in some time. Roughly speaking, if you look at the electoral maps of the 2004 and 2010, you will see that it is the same electoral map of Ukraine, in general. This lo- cal [department] of the institute [the Institute of National Memory] was created as an opposition to the way Kernes built his political campaign through Zhukov and through it all. And the appearance of the [local department]of the Institute of National Memory means simply that in future this topic will be long-playing and interesting for the me- dia, it is necessary that it be a conflict one. For me, it is just evidence that the conflict will continue in the local elec- tions and perhaps in our next election cycles. Е3 (Euromaidan activist): It was a pure election thing. Especially, they did it simul- taneously in Kharkiv and Odesa. It did not help in the vot- ing; they really took 8%. E4 (volunteer and political scientist): It was done for the elections so that those 70 percent of Sovietophylls in the Kharkiv region could show that ‘we will support you, we love you, we are all with you. Fig. 2. A sign with a new street name and a trace of an old sign. August 2019 Source: image by Denys Kutsenko. Experience of implementing decommunization laws in Eastern Ukraine: a Kharkiv case 61 However, it did not help him – not a single person, a pro- tege of Kernes, was elected as a majoritarian. Е5 (PR-director, art director, activist): This may not be about their rebellious values, this is about the fact that very quickly finds a response from his electorate in a very simple whirlwind, that there was a struggle against fascism, and now new power comes, and fascism imposes. As can be seen, Expert 1 and Expert 2 characterized the policy of memory of the last years of the Po- roshenko presidency as separating the population and leading to polarization. The narrative used by these experts, according to Grytsenko’s classifica- tion, is rather liberal. 5. A case of the Mussuri Theater One of the historic buildings in the center of Kharkiv, the Mussuri Theater, was included in the list of archi- tectural monuments as a building in which worked all-Ukrainian congresses of councils, congresses and conferences of the Communist Party of Ukraine and LKSMU, the Congresses of Komsomol of Ukraine (Borisova (ed.), 1977, p. 157). In 2005, the building was removed from the list of monuments due to its emergency condition and was gradually destroyed. At the meeting on January 18, 2019, the Аdvisory council on the protection of cultural heritage at the Department of Culture and Tourism of Kharkiv Oblast State Administration decided on the wrong removal of the theatre building from the list of mon- uments. It petitioned the Ministry of Culture not to include the object in the list of monuments with “communist” substantiation13 (Zasidannâ..., 2019). Besides, the owner of the site where the theatre is located filed a lawsuit to the Kharkiv Regional State Administration with the demand to cancel the de- cision of the Kharkiv City Council from 25.01.1972 about the inclusion of the building in the list of monuments of the history of local importance. One of the arguments of the exclusion from the list was the Law No 317-VIII (One of the decommunization laws, (Zakon Ukraїny…, 2015)). The court took the plaintiff ’s side and cancelled the decision of 1972, repeatedly depriving the theatre of the monument status (Decision No 82345242 (Rišennya..., 2019)). Thus, if the local authorities do not want to defend the monuments of architecture, the law opens the door to the destruction of monumental art objects, 13 Probably, council members wanted to prepare a new sub- stantiation report, why the building should be on the list of monuments, but did not have time to do so due to the com- plexity of bureaucratic procedures. historical monuments, and archives created in the Soviet period or related to the establishment of So- viet power in Ukraine. Of course, the reasons why works of monumental art and architecture are de- stroyed in Ukraine are not reduced to mere decom- munization, but decommunization opened the door more widely and provided another argument to the authorities in their complete submission of space to their goals. As Ievgeniia Gubkina, an architect and architectural historian pointed out: “In post-Soviet countries, decisions are made only by the authori- ties, based on their own goals or the goals of a big business with which contemporary governments of- ten have corrupt relations, while communities and activists are not just completely excluded from the decision-making process, but also deprived of any chance of influencing it” (Gubkina, 2020). The prob- lems that decommunization created for the art of the Soviet period were also pointed out by N. Kalita (2019) and Y. Nikiforov (2017). 6. Conclusion Two case studies showed how authorities and re- gional political elites could instrumentalize and manipulate the decommunization laws adopted in 2015 to address the tactical challenges as well as to maximize the benefits of urban space management and access to resources. In the discussion of 2017 between the future director of the Kharkiv UINM department Maria Takhtaulova and a critic Ievgeniia Gubkina (“Otraženie…”, 2016) was the thesis made that instead of discussing the communist system, its undemocratic nature and totalitarianism, the Ukrainian society has moved to the destruction of arts and crafts as well as monuments. This case study confirmes Gubkina’s thesis. It is essential to pay at- tention to the significant polarization between the local activists in Kharkiv, the City Council and the re- gional administration in 2014–2019. The latter two bodies have different legitimacy, different budgets and a different set of tools to implement a policy of memory in such a complex borderland city as Kharkiv. The case of Marshal Zhukov Avenue and the destruction of the Mussuri Theater shows that the processes stimulated by decommunization are not yet complete, and the pluralism and the chaotic in- troduction of changes in urban space can continue to cause conflicts at the local level. 62 Denys Kutsenko References Balacuk I., 2019, Zelensky: Bandera buv by v šoci, skil’ky vulyc’ z jogo im’ âm (Eng. Zelensky: Bandera would be shocked how many streets are named after him), Ukraïnc’ka Pravda, 10.10.2019, https://www.pravda.com.ua/ news/2019/10/10/7228731/ (accessed 15 April 2020). Barkov S., 2019, Aktivisty sorvali tablički s imenem Žukova s domov pereimenovannogo prospekta (Eng. Activists ripped the signs with Zhukov’s name off the houses of the renamed avenue), Objectiv, https://www.objectiv.tv/ob- jectively/2019/06/26/aktivisty-sorvali-tablichki-s-imen- em-zhukova-s-domov-pereimenovannogo-prospekta/ (accessed 15 April 2020). Borisova T. (ed.), 1977, Istoriko-revolûcionnye pamâtniki Har’kovŝiny (Eng. Historical and Revolutionary Monu- ments in Kharkiv region), Kharkiv, Prapor. Commotion and Controversial Petitions on Victory Day in Kharkiv, 2019, Kharkiv Observer, http://kharkivobserver. com/commotion-and-controversial-petitions-on-victory- day-in-kharkiv/ (accessed 15 April 2020). Gaidai O., Sklokina I., Kasianov G. (eds.), 2018, Politika i pam ‘ât’. Dnipro – Zaporižžâ – Odesa – Harkiv. Vid 1990-h do s’ogodni (Eng. Politics and Memory. Dnipro – Zapor- izhzhya – Odesa – Kharkiv. From 1990s till today), FOP Shumylovych, Lviv. Gnatiuk O., 2018, The renaming of streets in post-revolu- tionary Ukraine: regional strategies to construct a new national identity, AUC Geographica, 53(2), 119–136. doi: 10.14712/23361980.2018.13 Golikov O., 2020, Pereimenovaniâ i dekommunizaciâ po- ukrainski: makropolitiki, istoričeskaya pamât’ i riski medi- atizacii (keis Harkova) (Eng. (Re-)naming and decommu- nization in Ukrainian: macropolicies, historical memory and the risks of mediatization (Kharkiv case)), Ideology and Politics, 1(15), 3–62. Grytsenko O., 2019, Dekomunizatsiâ v Ukraїni âk deržavna politika i socio-kul’turne âvyshche (Eng. Decommunization in Ukraine as a public policy and as a cultural phenom- enon), Instytut polityčnyh i etno-nacional ‘nyh doslidžen’ im. I.F. Kurasa NAN Ukraїni, Kyїv. Gubkina I., 2020, Losing My Religion: On Postwar Soviet Ar- chitecture in Contemporary Ukraine, Obieg, 14, https:// obieg.u-jazdowski.pl/en/numery/euphoria-fatigue/los- ing-my-religion (accessed 15 April 2020). Har’kovskij Enciklopedičeskij Slovar’, 2014 (Eng. Kharkiv en- cyclopedic dictionary), NTU KhPI, Kharkiv, http://reposi- tory.kpi.kharkov.ua/handle/KhPI-Press/4290 (accessed 15 April 2020). Iniciativa perejmenuvannâ prospektu Petra Grigorenka u Hark- ovi viklikaê serjozne zanepokoênnia (Eng. The initiative to rename Petro Grigorenko Avenue in Kharkiv is a matter of serious concern), 2020, Ukraïns’kij institut nacional’noï pam’âtì, https://uinp.gov.ua/pres-centr/novyny/iniciaty- va-pereymenuvannya-prospektu-petra-grygorenka-u- harkovi-vyklykaye-seryozne-zanepokoyennya (accessed 15 April 2020). Ishchenko V., 2016, The Ukrainian Left during and after the Maidan Protests, https://www.academia.edu/20445056/ The_Ukrainian_Left_during_and_after_the_Maidan_ Protests (accessed 15 April 2020). Kalita N., 2019, Kmitivskij muzej radâns’kogo mistectva ta Ievheniia Molyar (Eng. Kmytiv Soviet Art Muzeum and Ievheniia Molyar) https://supportyourart.com/ridnykraj/ kmpmmolyar, (accessed 15 April 2020). Kasianov G., 2016, Istoričeskaâ politika i „memorial’ nye” zako- ny v Ukraine: načalo XXI veka (Eng. Historical policy and memory laws in Ukraine: early XXIst century), Istoriches- kaya ekspertiza, 2, 28–57. Kasianov G., 2018, Past Continuous: Istorična politika 1980- 2000 Ukraїna ta susidi (Eng. Past Continuous: Historical Policy 1980–2000: Ukraine and its Neighbours), Laurus, Kyiv. Kozachenko I., 2019, Fighting for the Soviet Union 2.0: Digi- tal nostalgia and national belonging in the context of the Ukrainian crisis, Communist and Post-Communist Studies, 52(1), 1–10. doi: 10.1016/j.postcomstud.2019.01.001 Kravcenko A., 2012, Tajny tvorčestva Mihaila Ovsânkina (Eng. Mysteries of Mikhail Ovsyankin’s work), Objectiv, http://ar- chive.objectiv.tv/260512/70546.html (accessed 15 April 2020). Kudelko S. (ed.), 2011, Har’kov: spravočnik po nazvaniâm: 7000 ulic, ploŝadej, skverov, rajonov (Eng. Kharkov: directory of names: 7000 streets, squares, parks, districts.), Saga, Kharkiv. Kulyk V., 2017, Komu v Ukraїni potribni reformi (Eng. Who needs reforms in Ukraine), Dzerkalo Tižnâ, 13(1102), htt- ps://zn.ua/ukr/SOCIUM/komu-v-ukrayini-potribni-refor- mi-239002_.html (accessed 15 April 2020). Kutsenko D., 2018, Some Aspects of Identity Politics of Kharkiv Local Authorities After 2013, Polish Political Science Review – Polski Przegląd Politologiczny, 6(1), 68–81. doi: 10.2478/ ppsr-2018-000 Kuzio T., 2015, Rise and Fall of the Party of Regions Political Machine, Problems of Post-Communism, 62(3), 174–186. doi: 10.1080/10758216.2015.1020127 Lashenko E., 2019, Skandal s pamâtnikom Žukovu: Zelensky dal sovet Kernesu (Eng. The Zhukov monument scandal: Ze- lensky gave advice to Kernes), Liga.novosti, https://news. liga.net/politics/news/zelenskiy-sovetuet-kernesu-stat- arbitrom-dekommunizatsii, (accessed 15 April 2020). Levin K., 2016, Interaktivna karta dekomunizaciї harkivs’koї toponimiki (Eng. Interactive map of the decommunization of Kharkiv toponymy), Allkharkov.ua, https://allkharkov. ua/news/state/nteraktivna-karta-dekomynzac-harkvsko- toponmki.html (accessed 15 April 2020). Minakov M., 2019, Mihailo Minakov pro vibori, populizm i ukraїns’kih intellektualiv (Eng. Mykhailo Minakov on elections, populism and Ukrainian intellectuals), https:// commons.com.ua/uk/intervyu-z-mihajlom-minakovim/ (accessed 15 April 2020). Miroshnichenko E., 2019, Pobeda na vyborah, demonstraciâ sily i istoričeskaâ spravedlivost’. Počemu Kernes prodolžaet „borot’sâ” za Žukova (Eng. Election victory, show of force and historical justice. Why does Kernes keep “fighting” for Zhukov), https://www.057.ua/news/2674087/pobeda- na-vyborah-demonstracia-sily-i-istoriceskaa-spravedliv- Experience of implementing decommunization laws in Eastern Ukraine: a Kharkiv case 63 ost-pocemu-kernes-prodolzaet-borotsa-za-zukova, (ac- cessed 15 April 2020). Mis’krada fal’ syfikuê rezul’taty golosuvannâ po perejmenu- vannû prospekta imeni generala Grigorenka (Eng. The City Council falsifies the results of voting for the renaming of General Grigorenko Avenue), 2019, 2day, https://2day. kh.ua/verhom-na-zhukove-kernes-i-muraev-proletayut- mimo-parlamenta (accessed 15 April 2020). Nikiforov Y., 2017, Decommunized: Ukrainian Soviet Mosaics, Osnovy Publishing, Kyiv-Berlin. Operaciâ “Zahoplennâ”: âk blogeri z „Demsokiri” vzâli pid kon- trol’ radu gromads’kogo kontrolû NABU (Eng. Operation Capture: How Demsokyra Bloggers Take Control of NABU Public Oversight Board), 2019, LB.ua, https://ukr.lb.ua/ news/2019/06/11/429269_operatsiya_zahoplennya_ yak_blogeri_z.html (accessed 15 April 2020). “Otraženie-Viddzerkalennâ” 03.04.2016 – Tahtaulova, Gubki- na (Eng. “Reflection” 03.04.2016 – Takhtaulova, Gubkina), https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MxRwM7c7ETM, (accessed 15 April 2020). Prospektu maršala Žukova snova vernuli ego istoričeskoe naz- vanie (Eng. Marshal Zhukov Avenue has been given its his- torical name again), 2020, Har’kovskie Izvestiâ, 26.2.2020, http://izvestia.kharkov.ua/on-line/gorod/1300990.html (accessed 15 April 2020). Prospektu maršala Žukova v Har’kove byt’ (Eng. Marshal Zhu- kov Avenue in Kharkiv to be), 2016, Har’kovskie Izvestiâ, https://izvestia.kharkov.ua/on-line/gorod/1220651.html (accessed 15 April 2020). Riabchuk M., 2016, Dekomunizaciâ chy dekolonizaciâ? Ŝo pokazali politični diskusiї z privodu dekomunizacijnih zakoniv (Eng. Decommunization or decolonization? What did the discussions about decommunization laws show?), Naukovi zapiski Institutu političnih i etnonacional- nih doslidžen’ im. I.F. Kurasa NAN Ukraїni, 2, 104–117. Rišennya No 82345242, 03.06.2019, (Decision No 82345242, 03.06.2019), 2019, Harkivs’kij Okružnyj Administrativnij Sud, https://youcontrol.com.ua/catalog/court-docu- ment/82345242/ (accessed 15 April 2020). Rišennya ŝodo nazv ob’ektiv toponimiki maût’ pryjmatisâ vid- povidno do činnogo zakonodavstva (Eng. Decisions on the names of toponymic objects must be made in ac- cordance with current legislation), 2019, KhOSA, https:// kharkivoda.gov.ua/news/99234 (accessed 15 April 2020). Serhiienko S., 2017, Istorična politika v Ukraїni (Eng. Historical policy in Ukraine), https://commons.com.ua/uk/istorich- na-politika-v-ukrayini/ (accessed 15 April 2020). Shekhovtsov A., 2020, Why Azov should not be designated a foreign terrorist organization, https://www.atlantic- council.org/blogs/ukrainealert/why-azov-should-not-be- designated-a-foreign-terrorist-organization/ (accessed 15 April 2020). Takhtaulova M., 2017, Harkivs’ka toponimika: etapy dekomunizaciї (Eng. Kharkiv toponymy: stages of decom- munization), Misto: istoriâ, kul’tura, suspil ‘stvo, 2, 142–151. Troubled Weekend: Mayors’ Party Congress and Statue Zhukov’s Toppling, 2019, Kharkiv Observer, https://kharkivobserv- er.com/troubled-weekend-mayors-party-congress-and- statue-zhukovs-toppling/ (accessed 15 April 2020). U Harkovi včyteli prosili bat’kiv golosuvaty “za” Žukova (Eng. In Kharkiv, teachers asked parents to vote “for” Zhukov), 2020, 2day, https://2day.kh.ua/ua/u-kharkovi-vchiteli- prosili-batkiv-golosuvati-za-zhukova (accessed 15 April 2020). U Harkovi vidbudet’sâ prezentatsiâ pivnično-shidnogo mižrehional‘nogo viddilu Ukraїnskogo Institutu nacionalnoї pam’ âti (Eng. A presentation of the North-Eastern Interre- gional Department of the Ukrainian Institute of National Memory will take place in Kharkiv), 2019, Ukraïns’kij insti- tut nacional’noï pam’âtì, https://uinp.gov.ua/pres-centr/ novyny/u-harkovi-vidbudetsya-prezentaciya-pivnichno- shidnogo-mizhregionalnogo-viddilu-ukrayinskogo-in- stytutu-nacionalnoyi-pamyati (accessed 15 April 2020). V AP otkazalis’ vozvraŝat prospektu imâ maršala Žukova (Eng. The AP refused to return the name of Marshal Zhukov to the Avenue), 2016, Har’kovskie Izvestiâ, 5.12.2016, https:// izvestia.kharkov.ua/on-line/20/1228800.html (accessed 15 April 2020). V Har’kove isčezli ulicy, nazvannye v čest organizatorov krasno- go terrora (Eng. Streets named after the organizers of the red terror have disappeared in Kharkiv), 2016, https://na- kipelo.ua/udalit-zapis-v-harkove-ischezli-ulitsy-nazvan- nye-v-chest-organizatorov-krasnogo-terrora/ (accessed 15 April 2020). Verhom na Žukove. Kernes i Muraev proletaût’ mimo parlamen- ta (Eng. Top on Zhukov. Kernes and Murayev are passed over by the parliament), 2019, 2day, https://2day.kh.ua/ verhom-na-zhukove-kernes-i-muraev-proletayut-mimo- parlamenta (accessed 15 April 2020). Z Žukovim u Harkovi nemaê pravovoї koliziї: pam’ âtnik slid demontuvati (Eng. There is no legal conflict with Zhukov in Kharkiv: the monument should be dismantled), 2019, Ukraïns’kij institut nacional’noï pam’âtì, https://uinp.gov. ua/pres-centr/novyny/z-zhukovym-u-harkovi-nemaye- pravovoyi-koliziyi-pamyatnyk-slid-demontuvaty-insty- tut-nacionalnoyi-pamyati (accessed 15 April 2020). Zaâva ŝodo rišennâ Harkivs’koї mis’koї radi perejmenuvati pros- pekt Petra Grigorenka (Eng. Statement on the decision of the Kharkiv City Council to rename Petro Grigorenko Avenue), 2020, Ukraïns’kij institut nacional’noï pam’âtì, https://uinp.gov.ua/pres-centr/novyny/zayava-shchodo- rishennya-harkivskoyi-miskoyi-rady-pereymenuvaty- prospekt-petra-grygorenka (accessed 15 April 2020). Zasidannâ Konsul’tativnoї radi pitan’ ohoroni kul’turnoї spadŝini pri Upravlìnnì kul’turi ì turizmu Harkìvs’koї oblasnoї deržavnoї admìnìstracìї 18.01.2019 (Eng. Meeting of the Advisory Council on Protection of Cultural Heritage at the Department of Culture and Tourism of the Kharkiv Regional State Administration 18.01.2019), 2019, Oblasnij komunalnij zaklad «Harkìvs’kij naukovo-metodičnij centr ohoroni kul’turnoї spadŝini», http://www.spadschina. kh.ua/18.01.2019-засідання-консультативної-ради. html (accessed 15 April 2020). Zakon Ukraїni pro zasudžennâ komunističnogo i nacional- socialističnogo (nacists’kogo) totalitarnih režimiv v Ukraїni ta zaboronu їhn’oї simvoliki No 317-VIII (Eng. Law of Ukraine On the Condemnation of the Communist and National Socialist (Nazi) Regimes, and Prohibition of Propaganda 64 Denys Kutsenko of Their Symbols No 317-VIII), 2015, https://zakon.rada. gov.ua/laws/show/317-19#Text (accessed 15 April 2020). Zhurzhenko T., 2016, Memory wars in post-soviet Kharkiv [in:] D. Segert (ed.), Civic Education and Democratisation in the Eastern Partnership Countries, Bundeszentrale für politische Bildung, Bonn, 102–123. Zub E., 2016, Eduard Zub. Toponimični zmini. Harkiv (Eng. Eduard Zub. Toponymical changes. Kharkiv), http://www. historians.in.ua/index.php/en/istoriya-i-pamyat-vazhki- pitannya/1751-eduard-zub-toponimichni-zminy-kharkiv (accessed 15 April 2020).