The Persistence of a Myth: Understanding and Debunking the “Nazi Ukraine” Narrative

By Robert Harris

Since the start of the full-scale invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, one of the most frequently invoked justifications offered by the Russian Federation has been its stated aim to “de-Nazify” Ukraine. This framing has been deployed as part of a broader attempt to justify aggression, particularly for international audiences. Yet, on closer inspection, the claim does not withstand scrutiny.

Ukraine’s far-right political parties have consistently received minimal support at the ballot box. In the 2019 parliamentary elections, such groups collectively failed to reach even 3% of the vote. President Volodymyr Zelensky—himself of Jewish heritage, and whose grandfather fought in the Red Army against the Nazis during the Second World War—was elected by a landslide majority. These basic facts undermine the core premise of the “de-Nazification” narrative, which appears increasingly detached from Ukraine’s political and social reality.

Yet this narrative persists and has found unexpected resonance outside of Russia, particularly among some voices on both the far-left and far-right of Western discourse. To understand how this has happened, it is necessary to examine the historical evolution of this myth.

Historical Roots of the Narrative

The conflation of Ukrainian nationalism with fascism can be traced back to Soviet-era propaganda. Following Ukraine’s brief assertion of independence in the aftermath of the 1917 Russian Revolution, the Bolsheviks quickly moved to reintegrate the region into what would become the Soviet Union. During the interwar years, the Soviet government repressed expressions of Ukrainian national identity, including language and culture, culminating in the catastrophic famine of 1932–33—known as the Holodomor—which many historians consider an act of deliberate policy.

During the Nazi invasion of the Soviet Union, some Ukrainians initially greeted the Germans as liberators. This was not necessarily a sign of ideological alignment, but rather a reflection of the extreme brutality suffered under Stalinist rule. While collaboration did occur in some areas, so too did resistance. Indeed, Ukrainian history during this period is highly complex, with various groups engaging in multi-directional conflicts—against Nazis, Soviets, and others—driven by a mixture of survival, ideology, and a desire for national self-determination.

After the war, the Stalinist regime labelled virtually any expression of Ukrainian independence as “fascist.” This rhetorical device became a convenient tool for suppressing dissent, replacing earlier labels such as “bourgeois nationalist” or “counter-revolutionary.” It would remain a recurring theme in Soviet discourse throughout the Cold War: any Ukrainian who challenged Moscow’s authority was depicted as a Nazi sympathiser or worse.

The Legacy of Soviet Propaganda in the West

This framing made its way into Western discourse through various channels. A particularly influential example was the 1987 publication of Fraud, Famine and Fascism by Canadian author Douglas Tottle, which denied that the Holodomor had occurred and framed Ukrainian diaspora communities as fascist sympathisers. The book closely mirrored Soviet-era talking points and has been widely criticised by scholars for its historical inaccuracies.

Despite being discredited, this narrative lingered on the political fringes. It was occasionally adopted by segments of the Western left in the late 20th century, particularly within anti-imperialist or Marxist circles that viewed Soviet policies through a more sympathetic lens. The result was a distorted portrayal of Ukrainian nationalism as inherently reactionary, or worse.

Recycling of the Narrative in Contemporary Politics

In recent years, and particularly since the onset of war in 2022, elements of this narrative have found new life—this time in unexpected quarters of the Western political right. Some commentators and political figures have echoed Kremlin talking points by suggesting that Ukraine is governed by extremist elements, despite the overwhelming electoral rejection of far-right politics by Ukrainian voters.

This shift appears to be driven less by ideological alignment with the Soviet view of Ukraine and more by domestic political dynamics. In polarised environments, foreign policy positions often become inversely tied to partisan identification. Thus, as Western governments have rallied in support of Ukraine, some opposition voices have cast doubt on Kyiv’s legitimacy, often drawing on outdated or misleading tropes.

The result is an unusual convergence: a decades-old Soviet-era talking point, initially used to discredit Ukrainian dissidents, is now employed by ideologically diverse actors across the political spectrum. But repetition does not confer truth. The portrayal of Ukraine as a “Nazi state” remains factually unsubstantiated and misleading.

Ukraine’s Political Reality

Ukrainian society is diverse, pluralistic, and politically dynamic. Its institutions, while imperfect like any young democracy, are committed to values of civic participation, accountability, and the rule of law. Far-right elements exist, as they do in most countries, but they remain marginal in terms of political influence. Notably, Ukraine is one of the few European countries where far-right parties have failed to enter parliament since 2019.

Moreover, Ukraine has made considerable efforts to confront difficult aspects of its past. Debates about historical memory—including those concerning wartime collaboration—are active within Ukrainian academia and civil society. These are not ignored or suppressed, but addressed as part of the country’s evolving democratic conversation.

Conclusion: Why This Myth Matters

The persistence of the “Nazi Ukraine” myth is not merely a curiosity of propaganda history. It serves a concrete purpose: to delegitimise Ukrainian sovereignty, justify foreign aggression, and obscure the reality of a country defending itself against invasion. It draws on a long tradition of equating national self-determination with extremism and uses emotionally charged labels to shut down nuanced discussion.

In today’s environment, where information warfare is as potent as missile strikes, historical accuracy matters more than ever. The myth that Ukraine is a fascist state is not only historically unfounded—it is strategically deployed to excuse violence, suppress national identity, and destabilise the international consensus against military aggression.

Regardless of who repeats it—whether from the left or the right, in Moscow or abroad—it remains a myth. And it is incumbent upon scholars, journalists, and citizens alike to confront such myths with evidence, context, and integrity.

---

Robert Harris is a teacher in Lviv and the author of Smells like BULL-Shevik to ME! - A Conservative Talks to Conservatives About Russian Lies.