Ukrainians in War-Torn East Topple Massive Lenin Statue


youtube screencap

In the early hours of Sunday reportedly thousands of Ukrainian protesters in the nation's war-torn east toppled a 28-foot tall statue of Soviet Russian leader and icon Vladimir Lenin.

When the statue came down, Ukraine's interior minister wrote on Facebook, "Lenin? Let him fall. As long as this bloody communist idol does not take more victims with it when it goes." Lenin was responsible for mass killings of countless thousands in Ukraine and other countries in the Soviet sphere of influence.

As this Lenin monument fell, the regional governor signed a last minute order OKing its demolition. The BBC suggests this was "to save face" while The Independent suggests it was done as "a way to decriminalize the actions of the protesters."

"Some 168 Lenin monuments have been destroyed in Ukraine since the first was felled in the capital of Kiev last December" when a pro-democracy, pro-western began, notes Mashable, which also points out that some of Ukraine's aggressive nationalists participated in this weekend's toppling.


Elsewhere in Eastern Europe, people have been defacing old Soviet monuments to tick off Russia. One Polish town actually erected a new statue of the dictator; He's a garish neon green and is taking an undignified piss.

The latest statue was located in the central square of Kharkiv, Ukraine's second largest city. It borders Russia, and Russian President Vladimir Putin hopes will become part of a breakaway "New Russia." A poll conducted by a major Russian political opposition leader suggests that the vast majority of Kharkiv residents do not want to be more closely aligned with Russia, though. 

Despite a ceasefire signed earlier this month between the Ukrainian government and the forces Putin supports (Russians, Chechens, other mercenaries, and some locals), the war looks to be ramping up again with high death tolls reported this weekend south of Kharkiv in the Donetsk region. 

Watch the sucker fall:


NEXT: The Best Campaign Rap Video You'll See All Day, feat. Wyclef Jean

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. THAT’ll learn ‘im!

    1. But srsly – good on ’em for tweakin’ the Bear.

      and I continue to hope all is well with Groovus.


    Could it be someone at reason with a Bond-villainous name?

    1. Boris Badenov works at Reason now?

    2. You caught me again, Fist.

      1. Are Fist and Zenon some sort of Unnamed Narrator/Tyler Durden type manifestation?

          1. But which is which?

    3. Evans is a Bond villain name?

      1. “No, Mr. G.K.C., I expect you to die.”

  3. Lets go Ukraine! Lets go Ukraine! Lets go Ukraine!

    No more Russia Today for Reason contributors.

    1. No more Russia Today for Reason contributors.

      If guilt by association is the name of the game, there is no media outlet that Reason contributors should appear on.

  4. alt-text of the week

  5. Nice alt-text.

    But you know, they probably could have sold that to the US for a cargo ship full of dollars, Obama would have put it up on the white house lawn.

    1. Nah, already got one in Seattle.…..eattle.jpg

    2. Nah, I bet the Eisenhower Memorial ends up looking a lot like Lenin.

      *oopsie, lol*

  6. Every time I see one of these posts, I wonder how Dr. Groovus is doing.

    1. *said in eastern european accent*

      Business make BIG BOOM!

    2. You know the kids in Red Dawn? That’s pretty much Groovus.

  7. Be ironic if that Polish town gets to get pissed on for real by the latter-day Leninist currently running Russia, thanks to isolationist agitating by Reason and others.

    1. I hear Vlad the Reclaimer bases most of his actions on what Reason’s posting, so….it’s highly likely.

    2. Yeah, because we have sooooo much power.

      1. There are 24 of us now.

        1. I joined today so now we are 24 1/2

          1. *Hands FUQ his REASON TEAM shirt*

    3. Da derpity derp derp

    4. Any nation that has military bases on nearly every continent of the world is incapable of being isolationist. You’re just discrediting any argument you make by using the term.

      And maybe, just maybe, Europe should stop getting a free ride and pay for their own defense.

    5. Heavily invested in Poland, are you?

    6. Still waiting for a substantive argument. I know, I know…

      International relations is gangsterism. You can be a gangster or a victim. Believe me I know how deeply, deeply depressing that is. But it is, nonetheless. As they say, you may not be interested in war, but war is interested in you.

      1. The substantive argument is that the United States has absolutely no national interest in defending Poland.

        1. If we don’t defend Poland over there, we’ll have to defend Poland over here!

          If just one more kielbasa falls into Russian hands, …

      2. Still waiting for a substantive argument.

        You first.

      3. Hi, Mary!

      4. Ok, let’s hear your brilliant intervention plan first. Please provide actual military objectives and detailed long term strategic planning.

        1. Not needed. We’ll start bombing first and figure all that trivial stuff out later

          /Last two presidents

        2. Combat formations to each of the countries Putin will threaten, especially Poland, but also including (not limited to) the Baltic states and Finland, and western Ukraine. We have a lot of experience deploying peacekeeping troops to unstable regions without starting a war. There’s no need to interfere with Russian commerce or engage Russian troops (unless they shoot first), just quietly but firmly secure the existing borders.

          We publicly state our intention to protect our friends, as shown by our troops being on their soil, and privately tell Putin in no uncertain terms that borders are borders, and they aren’t going to be redrawn by force in the 21st century, especially to install undemocratic governments in place of democratic ones, no matter what excuses anyone has.

          This won’t happen in real life, of course, because it would require something like a James Monroe in the White House, and there is none such anywhere in our political establishment today.

          Go read some history. If, after that, you still believe there’s nothing to the idea that we can fight a small war now, or a huge one later when dealing with an expansionist empire, then I can’t help you any further.

          1. And why would I spend all that money to protect someone else’s nation? What is my interest in Poland? Do the Poles pay taxes to fund our military?

            Not my job, pal!

          2. Aren’t you already conceding that borders can be redrawn by force in saying the US should act in defense of “western Ukraine”?

          3. So your plan is the Fulda Gap line but a dozen times the size? Great, the American public foots the billions upon billions of dollars required to defend Eastern Europe, while countries like Finland get to continue their massive entitlement states. How generous of you, spending other people’s money and lives like that.

            It’s also not logistically possible given the changes in the geopolitical sphere since the end of the Cold War. American military attention has shifted to the Middle East and their logistical and strategic demands reflect that. Good luck covering the land systems required to patrol half of Eastern Europe from your Russian boogeyman, especially when America is also actively intervening in Middle Eastern conflicts.

            ‘Go read some history’ is hilarious coming from you and your ridiculously expensive and logistically difficult demands. ‘We can fight a small war now’ is not an applicable strategy when dealing with a major nuclear power in their geopolitical sphere of influence. Your strategy is the permanent American occupation of Eastern Europe. Fundamentally stupid and bankrupting.

    7. Putin is far more a modern czar than a Leninist.

  8. Funny how those who have lived it, want nothing to do with it.

  9. I expect a swarm of Russia apologistes will be in shortly tut tutting this provcative action!

  10. I’d thought they’d torn most of these things down 20-some years ago, especially in places like Poland and Ukraine with particular axes to grind with the Soviets.

    1. It’s probably a full-time job tearing these things down. For pete’s sake, there’s Lenin statues in each polar region.

  11. BTW, alt text win on the first pic.

  12. When the statue came down, Ukraine’s interior minister wrote on Facebook, “Lenin? Let him fall. As long as this bloody communist idol does not take more victims with it when it goes.”

    Occupy protesters everywhere just shit themselves.

  13. Those parts of Ukraine under Russo-separatist occupation need to start forming hit squads to kill the insurrectionists. Hit and Run kind of thing.

  14. Good to see statues of Lenin fall.

    Bad to see continued Reason anti Russian coverage. Good to tweak the Bear? Why would you not want to honor legitimate Russian interests and tweak the only other country with the capacity to cause nuclear winter?

    Russia stopped the US from bombing Syria (directly, for now) and tried to tell us about Boston bomber. We have areas of mutual concern. But Russia is a BRICK nation, friendly to IRAN and Syria for sure, but so what?

    Is this about a pipeline that Qatar wants to build to bring Arabian oil to Europe to cut off Russia?

    1. Good, I was wondering when the Russia apologists were going to start showing up.

      There are, shall we say, many areas where Russia and the US’ interests and orientations are not mutual. Human rights is one of them. As far as “legitimate” Russian interests go, while I will acknowledge that Russia has historic imperialist tendencies in Eastern Europe the legitimacy of such an illiberal hegemony must of course be condemned by anyone of a liberal persuasion.

      1. Imperialism is only bad when America does it noninterventionists pretend America is doing it.

        1. Well summarized, Cytotoxic. Well summarized.

    2. Is it “anti-Russian” to simply point out that people in Eastern Ukraine don’t like their country being invaded and shelled by Russians?

      Its not like “the CIA” paid them* to pull down those statues, you know

      (which i am assuming is “idiotic comment” #2 lurking in the wings)

      1. Funny enough, Russian Nationalists currently fighting in Ukraine hate Lenin as much if not more than their Ukrainian Nationalist opponents. Russian rebels rejoice when Lenin statues go down.

        1. Go figure.

          Why don’t they tear them down in Russia?

          1. Putin wants reconciliation between old guard Communists and White Russian (as in, Civil War pro-Monarchist types) Nationalists. White Russians hate that, hate Putin as a Commie sellout whore, and fight for their faith, family values (they hate gays), and a Tsar as a symbol.

            They hate Lenin.

    3. Clearly Reason is going to start WWIII if they keep posting articles critical of Putin.

  15. It’s hilarious. Didn’t know they had any of those left. No worries though, if they surrendered Kharkiv to the rebels, Strelkov would have pulled that statue down himself. Lenin just doesn’t get no respect nowadays lol.

  16. Wasnt someone saying something about how Eastern Ukrainians all “wanted to be Russian anyway”, so its completely ‘natural’ that Russia should want to invade and subordinate the region, etc. I mean, its not like that ever was a bad idea

    I’d really hate to have to look it up and link to some piece saying as much.

    1. East Ukrainians contain a significant ethnic Russian minority, no, they don’t want to join Russia by and large (minority does though), and Russia is not invading anybody – they back their pet rebel group, (sometimes with irregular soldiers), and try to keep a low profile.

      When uniformed Russian Army (full with air support etc) storms Kiev, or other Ukrainian territory, then it would be invasion. If Ukraine has a problem with RF actions in its territory, they are free to formally declare a war on Russia. A true invasion would compel them to do that. They have not done so yet, so apparently they also prefer to keep this down to a misunderstanding level.

      1. That’s a pretty creative interpretation

        Particularly since Russia *has* already formally invaded and annexed Crimea.

        Acting as though their proxy-fighters in the east, supported by Russian AA and Artillery, etc, are just ‘freedom fighters’ or something is a bit of a stretch.

        What’s your point, anyway? Mine was that a) Ukrainians don’t support Russia’s intervention into the East. and b) this magazine has on occasion downplayed Russian actions as ‘understandable’ given the ethnic connections the region has with Russia. (i believe the term used was, “Its their ‘Backyard'”, and therefore is beyond criticism, or something)

        I’m not even sure which of the above 2 points you are responding to.

      2. Also, this idea of “Ukraine should declare war if they have a problem” is pretty rich.

        That’s what the russians *want*. Because they they have every reason to simply ‘invade and storm Kiev’.

        1. “they they”

          “because *then they’d* have every reason…”

          1. Russian AA and artillery are just like Western airstrikes, just more old-fashioned.

            My point is, Ukrainian government screwed up and crossed Russian national interests. Much like, say Qaddafi did in Lybia with respect to the West. Both ended up like deer in the headlights. Though I don’t see Poroshenko tortured and murdered any time soon.

            Ukraine has a problem with that? Well, deal with it. Start a real war like that Georgian idiot in 2008. As it stands, yes Ukraine is Russian front yard, such is geography, and yes it will be taken into account one way or another.

            1. ” Ukrainian government screwed up and crossed Russian national interests.”

              By throwing out their corrupt, Russian-puppet leader?

              Fuck off, slaver

              1. Yanuk wasn’t Russian puppet. He was a corrupt fool, that is true. They could have had their Orange Revolution Mark II, and voted him out. Been there, done that. When they started burning political offices, they crossed the line.

                Anyway, doesn’t matter anymore. Like I said, Ukraine is free to deal with it as it pleases Ukraine.

                1. “Malkavian|9.29.14 @ 2:52PM|#

                  Yanuk wasn’t Russian puppet.”

                  Really? because its odd, you’d think if that weren’t the case, he’d have found some place *actually inside Ukraine* to flee, rather than be chilling @ the Moscow Hilton.

                  Fuck off, slaver. Ukraine WASNT free to deal with things as they please, according to your earlier claim that their own ‘self-determination’ was an insult to ‘Russian Interests’

                  1. If he was a Russian puppet, there would be Russian troops on Kiev streets in January, if not earlier.

                    Ukraine was free to do as it pleased, and it is free to do so now. Just because there are outcomes that Ukraine doesn’t like, doesn’t mean they are not free to do as they please. Hell, even Georgian idiot got to stay in power, and he killed a bunch of Russian soldiers. Putin is pathetic, and Russians are weak now.

                    1. Well, OK, maybe it was a bit harsh – Putin does need to play diplomacy after all. Russia is weaker though, historically speaking.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.