“Bulgakov is a symbol of Russian imperial policy, and monuments to him are propaganda”: conclusion of the UIPN

Mikhail Bulgakov, despite his Ukrainian roots, was an imperialist and Ukrainophobe by worldview.

Experts from the Ukrainian Institute of National Memory of Ukraine (UINP) write about this.

Objects dedicated to the Russian writer Mikhail Bulgakov in Ukraine are symbols of Russian imperial policy, and their continued presence in public space carries a propagandistic character.

Ukrainian Institute of National Memory (UINP) — created on May 31, 2006, as a central executive body for implementing state policy in the field of restoring and preserving national memory, whose activities are directed and coordinated by the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine through the Minister of Culture. Previously — the central executive body of Ukraine with a special status, from 2010 to 2014 — a scientific research budget institution.

The main tasks of the Institute are declared to be: increasing society’s attention to the history of Ukraine, ensuring a comprehensive study of the stages of the struggle for the restoration of Ukrainian statehood in the 20th century, and carrying out activities to commemorate the participants of the national liberation struggle, victims of famines, and political repressions.

They noted that despite the fact that the author of the Russian-language novels “The Master and Margarita,” “Heart of a Dog,” “The White Guard” and others was born and lived for a long time in Kyiv, his family came from the Oryol province, and Bulgakov himself was an imperialist and Ukrainophobe by worldview.

“The writer, despite years of living in Kyiv, despised Ukrainians and their culture, hated the Ukrainian aspiration for independence, and spoke negatively about the formation of the Ukrainian state and its leaders.

Among all Russian writers of that time, he is closest to the current ideologies of Putinism and the Kremlin’s justification of ethnocide in Ukraine.

Ideologically, he was on the positions of Russian imperialism, White Guardism, and approved the expansion of Russian communism“, — states the professional conclusion of UINP experts.

Experts also noted that the inhumane discourse of Bulgakov’s story “I Killed” (1926) fully resonates with the narratives of current Kremlin propagandists — Dugin, Solovyov, Skabeeva and is a prototype of today’s calls for the destruction of Ukrainians.

“The story contains the ideology of fascism: a wounded military doctor-Ukrainian is killed by a character-doctor, Bulgakov’s alter ego, solely for his nationality. The author, a doctor by profession, artistically savors the moment of murder and, guided by the idea of ethnocide, proves an absurd thesis: the medical oath, the Hippocratic code can be overstepped”, — states the analysis of the Russian writer’s works.

Mikhail Bulgakov and his circle did not recognize the existence of the Ukrainian language.

The Russian writer was biased and expressively negative towards everything Ukrainian — Ukrainians, their language, culture, the right to their own state, etc., and his work is directly connected with the glorification of Russian imperial policy and undisguised Ukrainophobia.

“Considering the above,

objects (geographical objects, names of legal entities, monuments, and memorial signs) dedicated to the Russian writer M. A. Bulgakov (1891–1940), in accordance with the first part of Article 2 of the Law, contain symbols of Russian imperial policy, and the further use of M. A. Bulgakov’s name in the names of geographical objects and legal entities, the presence in public space of monuments and memorial signs established in his honor

is propaganda of Russian imperial policy“, — summarized the Ukrainian Institute of National Memory.

Bulgakov and Israeli guardians of “culture outside politics,” or “Russian culture without Putin” (and, as it turned out, with Putin too)

Kyiv’s decision to remove the monument to Mikhail Bulgakov caused a stormy reaction in Israel — and, of course, primarily in Russian-speaking groups and Facebook comments.
Cries about “fascism,” “cancellation of culture,” “have reached the limit.”
But honestly — it’s not about the monument at all. And not even about Bulgakov.

It’s about a myth.

For years, the formula worked perfectly in Israel:
“Russian culture without Putin.”

Convenient, warm, almost therapeutic.
It allowed saying:
we are against the regime,
we are for the high and eternal,
politics has nothing to do with it.

Bulgakov fit perfectly into this scheme:
not Soviet, not poster-like, intelligent, “above the fray.”
A convenient symbol for aliyah, which wanted to preserve “culture” and distance itself from responsibility.

“The darkness that came from the Mediterranean Sea covered the city hated by the procurator.”

A beautiful phrase.
This is exactly how Russian classics existed in the consciousness of many —
as something atmospheric, eternal, and beyond responsibility.

Russian culture in this dispute is not about language, not about style, and not about aesthetics.
It’s about the inherited imperial optics, where other peoples exist as a background, as “material,” as a temporary misunderstanding.
And when they say “culture outside politics,” they most often mean not neutrality, but the habit of not noticing whom this culture has devalued for decades.

And then Ukraine said a simple thing:
a monument is not about literature.
A monument is about the values you publicly affirm now.

And suddenly something unpleasant was revealed.

According to the conclusions of experts from the Ukrainian Institute of National Memory, Bulgakov, despite being born in Kyiv, was an imperialist and Ukrainophobe by worldview.
He denied Ukrainian statehood, ridiculed the Ukrainian movement, did not recognize the Ukrainian language, and wrote from a harsh imperial perspective.

The Institute directly points out:
objects dedicated to Bulgakov in Ukraine are symbols of Russian imperial policy, and their preservation in public space carries a propagandistic character.

This was not invented today.
It is recorded in texts, letters, and professional conclusions.

And the formula breaks.

It turns out not “Russian culture without Putin,”
but Russian culture without Putin — but with the same attitude towards Ukraine.

That is, in fact,
and with Putin too,
just without the portrait on the wall.

This is where the real hysteria begins — in Israeli chats and comments.
Because if the classics are not outside politics,
if the “great culture” is not neutral,
if Kyiv has the right to decide whom to put on a pedestal,
then a thought arises that becomes uncomfortable:
the problem is not only in Putin.

It is important to note separately:
Bulgakov’s books are not banned,
the museum in Kyiv is working,
his texts have not disappeared.

It’s exclusively about the monument —
about a symbol in the public space of a city that is being bombed today.

Ukraine says:
we do not want to see this person
as a sign of approval
during a war for self-existence.

This is not censorship.
This is a choice of symbols.

Why the reaction specifically in Israel?

Because here the convenient formula lived for too long:
we left politics, culture is our refuge.

And now it turned out that culture also made a choice.
And this choice often coincided
with what is flying with missiles over Ukrainian cities today.

📚 Bulgakov remains a writer.
🗿 But ceases to be a monument.
🇺🇦 And this is Ukraine’s decision — not Russian-speaking Facebook in Israel.

And now the question:
is it still possible to pretend that “culture outside politics” is possible if this very culture has denied another nation’s right to exist for decades — and today these views are being realized through war?

#НАновости #NAnews
#Israel #Ukraine #IsraelUkraine
#HistoricalMemory #RussianCulture
#Bulgakov #Decolonization #CultureAndPolitics