Kyiv, not Kiev: Why spelling matters in Ukraine’s search for an independent identity

This increase in media attention has helped revive foreign interest in all things Ukrainian, with mixed results. Many journalists have clearly struggled to understand Ukraine’s Byzantine ‘political swamp’, while others have found Steinmeier’s extremely non-German Formula in its bizarre inaccuracy.

At the same time, however, editors from some of the world’s largest media outlets seem to have decided that this was the right time to update their guidelines. A number of global media have recently adopted Kyiv derived in Ukrainian as their official spelling for the country’s capital, replacing “Kiev” with Russian roots. This trend started with the Associated Press in late August. Since then, the Wall Street Journal, the Washington Post, the Telegraph and the BBC have followed suit.

This rush to Ukrainianize spellings is not just a response to Kyiv’s unexpected importance. It represents the latest chapter in a lengthy campaign to ensure the recognition in the Ukrainian language versions of the names of Ukrainian countries and is part of a much broader post-Soviet effort to assert an independent Ukrainian identity. These efforts have not always been successful. For example, the Ukrainian authorities initially adopted “Kyiv” as the official spelling in English in the mid-1990s, but beyond the world of diplomatic protocol, most members of the international community ignored it and continued with the more popular “Kiev”.

This overwhelming response was a symptom of the ignorance and indifference that shaped foreign attitudes toward Ukrainian citizenship during the first decades of the country’s independence. Indeed, before the outbreak of the Russo-Ukrainian War, many people wondered what all this fuss was about and usually turned down calls to adopt Ukrainian orthographies as a rampage of a nationalist extremism. Others saw it as a pure assumption on the part of Ukraine. Somewhat unfairly, they asked why there was no similar noise to rename “Moscow” as “Moscow” or “Rome” as “Rome”, ignoring the apparent imperial imposition evident in the case of Ukraine, but missing noticeably from the other names of European English countries.

A much more meaningful comparison would be the change of post-colonial name in Asia, like the shift from Ceylon to Sri Lanka or the change from Bombay to Mumbai. Few, however, seemed to regard Ukraine’s post-imperial sensibilities as worthy of the same consideration.

All this changed when Russian President Vladimir Putin invaded Ukraine. It is no coincidence that international attitudes towards the Kyiv vs. Kiev debate have undergone a radical transformation since 2014. Like many other aspects of Ukrainian identity policy, the Russian attack has electrified the issue, giving it a completely different meaning. re in the local audience and encouraging the outside world to think again.

With Russian tanks parked in the Donbas and Moscow propagandists denouncing Ukraine as a historic accident, the continued use of Russian-language transliterations for Ukrainian cities became not only absurd but also grotesque.

As a result, the flood of institutions and media that embraced the “Kyiv” spelling before 2014 was reversed. In addition to the international press, the list of words converted after 2014 includes dozens of airlines and airports, numerous academic dictionaries and texts, and the United States Geographical Names Board with tremendous influence. Ukraine’s #KyivNotKiev campaign will inevitably continue, but we may finally have reached the turning point. “Kyiv” has now become the standard spelling in most of the world in English.

Not everyone is cheering for this triumph of Ukrainian transliteration. Critics have dismissed post-independence Ukraine’s name games as a populist show that distracts from the most urgent tasks of fighting corruption and building a functioning economy. Changing the names of the country’s streets, towns and cities will not put food on the table, they argue. This good approach is understandable in that it remains one of Europe’s poorest societies, but also loses the biggest point.

To appreciate the significance of the “Kyiv vs. Kiev” debate, we must first look back and look at it in terms of the deep-rooted crisis of national identity caused by centuries of Tsarist and Soviet Russification. For hundreds of years, successive Russian leaders tried to absorb Ukraine into the national centers of their country, exploiting the cultural proximity between the two nations to defeat and include the historic Ukrainian lands in the south. The shift in political and ideological considerations had little impact on this overarching imperial goal, with tsars and commissars regarding the reduction of Ukrainian identity as a national security priority.

The tools and tactics used to achieve this goal reflected the large scale of the enterprise. Generations of Ukrainians found themselves subject to everything from forced starvation and mass deportations to educational apartheid and language bans, with wave after wave of population transfers serving to transform the country’s demographic fate. Meanwhile, the stories were rewritten and the inappropriate chronicles were destroyed. No single document describes the Russian denial of Ukrainian identity as succinctly as the Valuev Circle of 1863. A Tsarist decree banning publications in the Ukrainian language states, in fact, “A separate Ukrainian language did not exist. never, does not exist and can not exist “.

This ruthless Russification managed to rob Ukraine of an independent identity, both at home and abroad. Responsible for the complex regional nuances of today’s Ukrainian population, it lies behind the country’s enduring international uncertainty. Nor has it been delivered to the dustbin of history. Even now, Putin continues to declare Russians and Ukrainians “one people” (ie, the Russians), while his representatives in occupied eastern Ukraine denounce the Ukrainians as traitors and call for the whole country to become a Russian protectorate.

Against this background, Ukraine’s desire for the outside world to use transliterations in the Ukrainian language seems nothing but insignificant.

Rather, it is a prayer for symbolic support in what is one of the last great battles of world history for independence. Ukraine’s journey to nation-building is far from over, but setting Ukrainian names for Ukrainian countries is an essential early step on the long road to recovery. Continued international media adoption of Kyiv’s favorite spelling may seem trivial, but it represents a significant contribution to the process.

Analysis by Peter Dickinson, a non-permanent member of the Atlantic Council

top channel