The risks are not small.

Ukrainian supporters of the decolonization strategy cite two historical precedents. The first is the Polish interwar Prometheus movement, which supported independence movements in Soviet-controlled territories. The second is the US resolutions on Enslaved Peoples' Week during the Cold War, which focused attention on the peoples occupied by the Soviet Union. Ukraine officially observes Enslaved Peoples' Week, directly copying the American model.

Kiev’s strategy carries significant risks. Moscow has already stepped up surveillance and repression in minority regions, and there is evidence that Ukrainian contacts have sometimes provided a pretext for repression that harms the very communities Kiev is trying to help. Some Ukrainian analysts, including Yuriy Kononenko, who headed the now-shuttered Library of Ukrainian Literature in Moscow, remain skeptical that the government will continue with the effort and suggest that Zelensky’s statements are aimed more at internal mobilization than at specific contacts. Furthermore, the effectiveness of support for non-Russian movements remains unproven. While these groups provide valuable information and fighters for Ukrainian forces, their ability to destabilize Russia from within is unclear. The Russian security apparatus, while overburdened, maintains powerful mechanisms of control in minority regions.

Strategic bet

Ukraine’s position of supporting the non-Russian and ethnic Ukrainian population in Russia represents a strategic bet that the outcome of the war depends not only on battlefield success but also on undermining Russian state cohesion. By invoking the principle of decolonization and drawing parallels with the collapse of the Soviet Union, Kiev is transforming the conflict from a territorial one into a broader struggle against Moscow’s imperialism.

Whether this approach accelerates Russia’s weakening or simply provides Moscow with propaganda victories remains an open question, but the adoption of this strategy indicates that Ukraine has concluded that it cannot achieve lasting security without fundamentally changing not only Russia’s actions but also Russia itself.