Public Sentiment in Ukraine: National Unity versus Regional Divergence

Since the full-scale Russian invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, Ukrainian society has undergone a seismic shift. What was once a country navigating complex regional identities and historical divisions has been forged, under the weight of war, into a more cohesive political and national entity. Yet beneath this visible unity lies a nuanced tapestry of regional identities, linguistic preferences, political affiliations, and socio-economic disparities. This essay explores the dynamic interplay between national unity and regional divergence in Ukraine, drawing on historical context, current wartime experiences, public opinion, and the challenges of post-war reintegration.

National Unity in the Face of War

The invasion galvanized Ukrainian society in unprecedented ways. Russian aggression, framed as a denial of Ukrainian sovereignty and identity, triggered an immediate surge of national consciousness. Surveys conducted by the Kyiv International Institute of Sociology (KIIS) and the Razumkov Centre throughout 2022 and 2023 consistently showed that over 80% of Ukrainians across all regions supported resistance to Russian forces and endorsed the country's aspiration to join the European Union and NATO.

Ukrainians from Odesa to Lviv, and from Chernihiv to Kharkiv, rallied around the defence of their statehood. Volunteer enlistments, donation drives, and the embrace of the Ukrainian language and culture intensified. The perception of Ukraine as a nation distinct from Russia—with its own history, values, and geopolitical orientation—solidified across demographics. Public support for President Volodymyr Zelensky soared, even in the historically Russian-speaking southern and eastern regions.

Regional Divergences: Historical Roots and Present Complexities

Yet unity does not imply uniformity. Ukraine has long been a mosaic of identities. The west of the country, with historical ties to the Austro-Hungarian Empire and Poland, has traditionally been more oriented toward European integration. The east and south, with deeper Soviet industrial legacies and proximity to Russia, have historically harbored stronger pro-Russian sentiments.

Before 2014, political divisions were stark: parties like the Russian-leaning Party of Regions dominated the southeast, while pro-European parties found support in the west and centre. Language has been a prominent marker of this divide. While Ukrainian is the state language, Russian remained dominant in everyday communication in cities such as Kharkiv, Dnipro, and Odesa. Following the invasion, the role of the Russian language became a flashpoint, with many previously Russophone Ukrainians switching to Ukrainian in protest at Russia’s actions.

Language Politics and Identity Shifts

The war accelerated the de-Russification of public spaces, education, and culture. Statues of Russian writers were removed; street names were changed; and Russian-language schools were converted to Ukrainian-language instruction. In many cities, citizens began learning Ukrainian for the first time, not due to state coercion, but out of patriotic sentiment.

Nonetheless language remains a sensitive issue. Ukraine’s unity will depend on ensuring that these cultural transformations are inclusive rather than exclusionary. Policymakers must avoid equating Russian language use with disloyalty, especially when millions of loyal Ukrainian citizens continue to speak Russian as their first language. Cultural integration must be managed with care to preserve social cohesion.

Socioeconomic Disparities

War has devastated Ukraine’s economy, exacerbating regional disparities. Cities closer to the front lines—for example Kherson, Zaporizhzhia, Izium and Donetsk—have suffered catastrophic infrastructure losses. Meanwhile western Ukraine, though sheltering millions of internally displaced people, has seen some economic stabilisation thanks to aid inflows and wartime relocations of businesses.

Economic reconstruction will need to account for these regional disparities. Without targeted investment in the war-ravaged east and south, Ukraine risks re-entrenching old fault lines. A fair and inclusive economic recovery will be central to sustaining national unity.

The Challenge of Reintegration

Assuming a future in which Ukraine regains control of all its territory, reintegration of the currently occupied regions will pose profound challenges. Millions have lived under Russian propaganda and administrative structures for years. Trust in Kyiv may be low. Education systems, law enforcement, and public services will need to be rebuilt from the ground up.

Here, lessons from post-conflict societies—from Germany’s reunification to the Balkans—may be instructive. Ukraine may consider transitional justice mechanisms, truth commissions, and civic reconciliation programs. Crucially, local voices from the Donbas and Crimea must be included in shaping the post-war order.

Case Studies and Voices from the Ground

1. Lviv: In western Ukraine, Lviv has become a hub of volunteerism and national pride. Olga, a 32-year-old schoolteacher, described her shift from apolitical detachment to full engagement: “I never considered myself very patriotic before, but now I donate, I teach in Ukrainian, and I cry when I hear our anthem.”

2. Kharkiv: Kharkiv, a traditionally Russophone city just 30 kilometres from the Russian border, has seen thousands of citizens rally around the defence of Ukraine. Dmytro, a 55-year-old engineer, told interviewers from Hromadske Radio, “I speak Russian, my parents were from Moscow—but my country is Ukraine. That’s where my loyalty lies.”

3. Zaporizhzhia and IDP's: Internally displaced people from Mariupol and Donetsk, now settled in Zaporizhzhia, describe trauma but also a deepened sense of belonging to Ukraine. Mariia, a 19-year-old university student, said: “In 2014, I didn’t know what to think. Now I’m sure. Russia destroyed our lives.”

4. Crimea (exiled voices): Crimean Tatars, who fled Russian persecution in Crimea, continue to advocate for reintegration. Mustafa Dzhemilev, a long-time Tatar leader, has spoken publicly about Ukraine’s obligation to protect minority rights in post-occupation Crimea.

The Road Ahead: Diplomacy, Reconstruction, and Civic Unity

Unity must not only be forged through resistance but sustained through reconciliation. As Ukraine and its allies consider post-war reconstruction, questions of governance, education, language policy, and economic justice will loom large. Europe has a role to play—not only through financial assistance, but by encouraging pluralism, decentralization, and respect for Ukraine’s diverse regional identities.

At the same time, public sentiment within Ukraine suggests a growing capacity for civic nationalism—a shared commitment to the idea of Ukraine that transcends language and regional origin. This foundation can support the emergence of a truly inclusive state.

Conclusion

Ukraine’s national unity today is both a product of shared trauma and a defiant response to external aggression. But unity is not the erasure of difference—it is the ability to navigate difference within a shared commitment to the republic. Regional divergence—linguistic, cultural, and economic—remains, but the war has shown that these do not preclude patriotism. The test for Ukraine will come not only in victory, but in how it manages peace: with empathy, justice, and a vision of citizenship that encompasses all her people.