How necessary is it to destroy statues in Ukraine?
They could have preserved them as a part of their history.
At least they could become tourist attractions.
Politics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for people interested in governments, policies, and political processes. It only takes a minute to sign up.Sign up to join this community
There's, indeed, a controversy amongst various people regarding the statues belonging to times of Russian occupation.
There are several considerations here:
P.S. Pro-Russians Kommunists who "worry" about Keeping the History Intact forget what the Communists did in the first order as soon as they took power. Yes, they have eliminated all statues and monuments belonged to previous regimes. The same happened in most occupied European countries as well.
A monument of the Russian Czar Alexander III destroyed by the Communists. Moscow, 1920
(image courtesy of)
It is important to understand the scale of ubiquity of the said statues, the scale of destruction, and the artistic value of the destroyed objects.
For example, the "tourist attraction" argument falls apart, because the statues of the communist leaders were in every settlement. Their artistic value is very low, since mass production of the said monuments required low-cost methods and produced non-unique pieces.
The removal of the monuments glorifying divisive historic figures is not specific to Ukraine, and hardly is deplorable at all. The role of the individuals is constantly re-evaluated by the new generations, and removing the statues from the public areas is common-place. Of other glaring examples, I refer you to the recent removal of the statue of Cecil Rhodes in Cape Town. Being a unique piece, though, it has not been destroyed, and has been moved for safe keeping to an undisclosed location.
Soviet regime killed so many Ukrainians that it is viewed by many the same way as if advocating to leave statues of Hitler in Germany because it is a history (which it is). Artificially created hunger in 1933 killed millions of Ukrainians and is considered in Ukraine an act of genocide. It is not acceptable to have statues of those who architected this crime.
Who does see it as a problem is Russian government, who promote acceptance of totalitarianism in Russia's satellite countries.
It is a history but a tragic one, so statues of Soviet regime belong to museums and not to the main squares of cities.
Statue destruction in Ukraine was a demonstration of power which was (and is) above the law. That is, it was pure vandalism (like this) driven by authorities behind the scenes. As the process is mostly illegal by its nature (another case: unknown persons, with hidden faces, police does not act, "it's not currently good time to restore the destroyed"), the question of necessity is not raised, discussed, argued, defended, explained in society. More to that, even protests to such activity (one more example) are merely ignored. Such destruction is a fact of life and a thing that just happens.
I was a witness of one of such cases of destruction in a local park nearby. There was no public discussion, there was no legal decision for the removal. It was a group of people with no insignia who removed a statue by damaging it (as opposed to civil disassembly), and who did not go away to avoid being caught. Still, police was called afterwards to do necessary paperwork for the offense. And yes, technically it was crime, it was documented exactly as this, event though it was followed by decision to not restore the original composition.
Specifically, everyone around including police officers expressed antipathy to such a barbaric action, which, in particular, shows how far other answers are from the reality discussing "regime" and "decommunization" in general.
Statue destruction, hence, is a part of disgusting anti-social behavior of Ukrainian authorities raising public fear and unrest.