Ukraine’s elites are anti‑national and media suppresses national culture
This fact-check may be outdated. Consider refreshing it to get the most current information.
Executive summary
Claims that “Ukraine’s elites are anti‑national” and that “the media suppresses national culture” run against a large body of reportage showing an active, state‑supported cultural revival and widespread efforts to protect Ukrainian identity amid war; UNESCO has verified damage to 514 cultural sites as of 10 December 2025, and international cultural seasons and festivals continue to amplify Ukrainian art abroad [1] [2] [3]. At the same time, analysts document persistent elite continuity from Soviet‑era networks, significant corruption perceptions, and intense information‑war dynamics that complicate media coverage and national messaging [4] [5] [6].
1. Ukraine’s cultural resurgence is visible and institutionally backed
Multiple outlets and institutions report a concerted effort to make culture central to Ukraine’s survival and recovery — Kyiv Post and the Atlantic Council frame culture as a national‑security priority, and international events such as France’s “Season of Ukraine — Culture Strikes Back” and the Ukraine Culture Network’s touring concerts show active promotion of Ukrainian arts abroad [7] [8] [2] [3]. These accounts indicate the state and civil society are investing in preservation, outreach and international visibility rather than suppressing national culture [7] [3].
2. The war has produced an intense campaign to protect and project identity
Analysts portray Russian tactics as aimed at erasing Ukrainian identity in occupied territories — from enforced Russification to confiscation of broadcasting equipment — prompting Ukrainian and international actors to prioritize cultural defence and documentation [9] [10] [11]. UNESCO’s verification of 514 damaged cultural sites underscores why Kyiv and partners treat culture as a security arena [1].
3. Complaints about an “anti‑national elite” have historical and political roots
Scholars and commentators trace Ukraine’s power elites to Soviet administrative culture and post‑Soviet oligarchic consolidation; those legacies fuel critiques that sections of the elite historically privileged Russian language and networks, a phenomenon discussed in Wilson Center and Novaya Gazeta analyses [4] [12]. Jacobin and other commentators similarly describe competing elite projects and enduring Soviet‑era cultural orientations among some intellectuals [13].
4. Corruption and elite behavior complicate claims about national commitment
Reporting from CEPA and other policy centers documents an “endemic culture of kickbacks” and public perceptions that corruption has risen since the 2022 invasion, with high‑profile probes of presidential associates underscoring the political stakes; such realities feed narratives that some elites act in self‑interest, undermining trust in institutions even as cultural revival proceeds [5].
5. Media behavior in wartime is mixed: mobilisation, censorship, and strategic communication
Research into Ukrainian media during the war finds a strong, solidarity‑oriented media environment that often prioritizes national messaging and strategic communications; scholars also document tendencies toward selective reporting, heroization, and reduced objectivity in wartime coverage — phenomena framed by some as necessary counter‑propaganda and by others as problematic for press pluralism [6] [14]. These accounts show media choices are driven by both defence imperatives and internal editorial dynamics [6] [14].
6. Occupation vs. Kyiv: where suppression is documented and where it is not
Credible international reports show cultural suppression and media replacement in Russian‑occupied Crimea and parts of Donbas — including bans on Ukrainian language education and the targeting of independent media — supporting the claim that Ukrainian culture is actively repressed under occupation [15] [11]. Available sources do not mention systematic suppression of national culture inside free Ukrainian‑controlled territory by Kyiv‑based media; instead sources point to state and civil‑society efforts to shore up culture [15] [7] [3].
7. Competing narratives and disinformation shape perceptions
Russian propaganda intentionally attacks Ukrainian nationhood and circulates narratives that blur or deny Ukrainian distinctiveness; Western analyses treat much pro‑Kremlin framing as disinformation intended to sow division and to delegitimise Kyiv [16] [11]. Simultaneously, Ukrainian strategic communications aim to counter that narrative, producing a media environment where truth claims are contested and perception is highly politicized [6] [16].
8. Bottom line for the original claim
Available sources show strong, sustained efforts by Ukrainian institutions, civil society and international partners to preserve and promote Ukrainian culture, while documenting repression of Ukrainian culture under Russian occupation and persistent elite legacies and corruption that fuel internal criticism [7] [2] [1] [9] [5] [4]. The blanket assertion that “Ukraine’s elites are anti‑national and media suppress national culture” overgeneralizes: sources support nuanced conclusions — elite continuity and governance problems exist, media operate under wartime pressures that skew coverage, but broad suppression of national culture inside Ukrainian‑held territory is not what the cited reporting documents [5] [6] [7].
Limitations: this synthesis relies only on the provided sources and does not attempt to adjudicate disputed claims beyond them; where evidence is absent in the available reporting I have noted that fact [4] [6].