Ukraine's War of Independence

The war in Ukraine is usually described as the “Russo-Ukrainian War,” the “war in Ukraine” or, since February 2022, Russia’s “full-scale invasion.” All these descriptions are accurate. But they do not fully express what is at stake.

A more revealing description is emerging among journalists, historians and political thinkers: Ukraine’s War of Independence.

The phrase is not merely rhetorical. It identifies the fundamental political character of the conflict.

Ukraine is fighting to make its independence irreversible.

Independence declared—but not accepted

Ukraine declared independence from the Soviet Union on 24 August 1991. In the referendum held that December, more than 90 percent of voters supported independence, including majorities in every region of the country.

Russia formally recognized Ukraine as an independent state. It signed agreements recognizing Ukraine’s borders and sovereignty. In the 1994 Budapest Memorandum, Russia also committed to respect Ukraine’s independence and territorial integrity.

Yet the Russian state never truly accepted the political consequences of Ukrainian independence.

For Moscow, Ukraine was not simply another neighboring country. It was treated as a territory that belonged naturally within Russia’s political, cultural and strategic sphere. Ukrainian sovereignty was tolerated only so long as Ukraine remained sufficiently dependent, submissive and geopolitically constrained.

When Ukrainians repeatedly attempted to choose a different future, Russia responded with pressure, interference and ultimately force.

The Orange Revolution of 2004 challenged a Russian-backed electoral fraud. The Revolution of Dignity in 2013–2014 rejected President Viktor Yanukovych’s decision to abandon an association agreement with the European Union under pressure from Moscow.

Russia responded by occupying Crimea, fomenting armed conflict in the Donbas and launching the broader invasion of February 2022.

The issue was never simply NATO expansion, language rights or a territorial dispute. Those arguments are instruments of Russian policy. The deeper issue is whether Ukraine has the right to exist as an independent political nation.

The American analogy

The American analogy is therefore stronger than it may initially appear.

The United States declared independence from Britain in 1776. But the declaration itself did not settle the matter. Britain continued fighting in an attempt to defeat the rebellion and restore imperial authority.

Even after the American victory and the Treaty of Paris, Britain continued to challenge the sovereignty of the new republic. This eventually contributed to the War of 1812, when Britain again fought the United States.

American independence was not secured by a document alone. It had to be defended until the former imperial power accepted that the new state could no longer be brought back under its control.

Ukraine is now engaged in a comparable struggle.

The difference is that Ukraine declared independence in 1991, not in 2022. The current war is therefore not Ukraine’s initial declaration of independence. It is the war through which Ukraine seeks to prevent Russia from revoking that independence.

The same pattern appeared throughout Spanish America.

When the former Spanish colonies declared independence in the early nineteenth century, Spain did not immediately accept the loss of its empire. It attempted to reconquer territories, suppress insurgencies and restore imperial rule.

The new republics had to defend their independence against a former imperial power that considered their separation illegitimate, temporary or reversible.

That is precisely the political structure of Russia’s war against Ukraine.

A former empire trying to restore control

The comparison does not mean that Russia and Britain or Spain were identical empires. Historical analogies should never be treated as perfect equivalences.

But the underlying logic is similar:

1. A dominant imperial power claims a neighboring people as part of its historical sphere.
2. The neighboring people asserts political independence.
3. The former imperial power refuses to accept the loss of control.
4. It presents resistance as rebellion, foreign manipulation or illegitimate nationalism.
5. It intervenes militarily to restore submission.
6. The attacked nation fights to make its independence permanent.

Russia’s language is particularly revealing.

The Kremlin has repeatedly denied that Ukrainians constitute a separate political nation. Vladimir Putin has described Russians and Ukrainians as “one people.” Russian officials have portrayed Ukraine as an artificial state, a historical error or a territory manipulated by foreign powers.

This is the language of empire.

An empire does not need to deny that a population exists. It needs to deny that the population possesses the right to make political decisions independently.

Who uses this interpretation?

The expression “Ukraine’s War of Independence” has been used by several prominent observers.

Yaroslav Trofimov, chief foreign-affairs correspondent of The Wall Street Journal, used it in the title of his 2024 book, Our Enemies Will Vanish: The Russian Invasion and Ukraine’s War of Independence. A CEU interview with Trofimov Ferenc Laczó, How Ukraine Has Won Its War of Independence Without Restoring Its Territorial Integrity — Yaroslav Trofimov on Russia's Invasion and Ukraine's Survival, Review of Democracy (Central European University) (8 January 2024)unverified record discusses the argument.

Historian Stephen Brain of Mississippi State University described the conflict in March 2022 in starkly similar terms:

“Ukraine is fighting a national war of independence, while Russia is fighting for the retention of empire.”

Mississippi State University, MSU professor details Russia-Ukraine history, which dates back more than a millennium (31 March 2022)unverified record

The French philosopher Étienne Balibar also described the conflict as a Ukrainian war of independence and a war of national independence, in an essay published by the Groupe d’études géopolitiques.

Other scholars have gone further. Tomasz Stryjek, Barbara Markowska-Marczak and Joanna Konieczna-Sałamatin have discussed the possibility of treating the war that began in 2014 as Ukraine’s Third War of Independence, following the struggles of 1917–1921 and 1939–1945.

The war is not about whether Ukraine is “allowed” to be neutral

One of the most persistent misunderstandings in Western commentary is the suggestion that Ukraine could end the war by simply accepting neutrality.

That assumes that the problem is Ukraine’s geopolitical alignment.

But Russia’s actions demonstrate that the problem is Ukrainian independence itself.

• its own government;
• its own army;
• its own borders;
• its own national identity;
• its own language policy;
• its own economic and diplomatic choices;
• and the right to establish relationships with countries other than Russia.

That degree of independence is precisely what Moscow has tried to prevent.

Russia invaded Ukraine not because Ukraine was attacking Russia, but because Russia rejected Ukraine’s right to determine its own future.

Why the terminology matters

Words shape political judgment.

Calling the conflict merely a “crisis” suggests a dispute between two sides. Calling it a “proxy war” shifts attention away from the country that was invaded. Calling it a “civil war” repeats one of the Kremlin’s central distortions.

Calling it Ukraine’s War of Independence makes the central fact impossible to avoid:

Ukraine is fighting to prevent a former empire from reabsorbing it.

This does not mean that every Ukrainian military objective is automatically justified, or that Ukraine is incapable of wrongdoing. It means that the war’s basic political asymmetry must be recognized.

Independence is not complete until it is secure

Ukraine became legally independent in 1991.

But legal independence and effective independence are not always the same thing.

A state may possess a flag, a seat at the United Nations and internationally recognized borders while remaining subject to military coercion by a larger neighbor.

True independence requires the ability to decide one’s own political future without asking permission from a former imperial power.

That is what Ukraine is fighting for.

The war will not truly be over when a ceasefire is signed. It will be over when Russia accepts that Ukraine is not a rebellious province, not an artificial state and not a temporary geopolitical accident.

Ukraine will be independent when its independence is no longer reversible by force.

That is why this is not only a war over territory.

It is Ukraine’s War of Independence.