Culture Under Fire: Ukraine’s Fight Against Russia’s Campaign of Erasure

Council on Foreign Relations | Mariel Ferragamo

Russian missile and drone strikes across Ukraine have increasingly targeted prominent cultural infrastructure, damaging or destroying at least 1,949 heritage monuments and 2,576 cultural sites since February 2022. Recent strikes hit the thousand-year-old Kyiv Pechersk Lavra monastery, the Kharkiv Art Museum, and the National Academy of Sciences. Cultural erasure is deliberate.

In Russian-occupied territories, Moscow has implemented systematic Russification by altering city monuments, replacing Ukrainian school curricula, enforcing Russian passport usage, and re-registering local museums under Russian state ownership. Official UNESCO records confirm 560 damaged sites, while Ukrainian civil society open-source tracking identifies at least 5,500 affected properties. Russian authorities have additionally issued 182 illegal archaeological permits in Crimea and Sevastopol, removing six million artifacts from the ancient site of New Chersonese. Kremlin messaging frames these territorial retrofits as patriotic restoration, but Ukrainian officials and legal experts classify the systematic destruction and narrative rewriting as deliberate cultural erasure.

Comment

Systematic targeting of cultural infrastructure forms a core component of Russian information operations aimed at suppressing Ukrainian identity. The destruction of historic sites such as the Kyiv Pechersk Lavra aligns with long-standing Kremlin efforts to invalidate independent national narratives. Moscow weaponises heritage administration to integrate captured assets directly into state-controlled historical frameworks.

This systematic narrative manipulation destabilises local civic cohesion in occupied territories over the long term. Forced integration of Ukrainian cultural sites into Russian state registries creates structural friction that complicates international legal restitution efforts under international humanitarian law.

Strategic Question for Discussion

Which carries more weight in countering state-sponsored heritage erasure—international legal enforcement under international humanitarian law or physical fortification of sites like the Kyiv Pechersk Lavra—and what determines that threshold?

The available evidence points toward physical protection and decentralized archiving as the more immediate defense against active targeting, as international legal enforcement lacks swift mechanisms during high-intensity conflict. However, formal documentation under international humanitarian law remains essential for post-conflict restitution and establishing legal accountability. My assessment is that long-term deterrence ultimately depends on combining real-time open-source tracking with binding multilateral sanctions.

Share your assessment in the comments below.

To read in details click here