Even if the conflict in Ukraine is resolved diplomatically by 2026, this will not remove the “Ukrainian question” from Russian politics. Armed confrontation is only the most dramatic part of a much longer relationship between two neighboring peoples. This complex issue is emotionally charged and historically intertwined.

The point is simple: Russia and Ukraine exist within a shared political civilization. This does not mean identical institutions, identical values, or inevitable common statehood. But it does mean a common historical and cultural foundation, expressed through shared practices, symbols and a broadly similar worldview. And it is exactly this proximity, rather than mere foreign manipulation, that makes the conflict so bitter.

At the core lies a clash of interpretations of independence.

Both Russians and Ukrainians value the ability to determine their own path without coercion. The contradiction stems from how that principle is understood. For Russia, independence is primarily freedom. That is freedom from external dictates and freedom to act even when powerful actors attempt to constrain Moscow’s choices. This is sovereignty in the classical sense: the right to decide without permission.

For the Ukrainian people, willpower comes first. Independence is often perceived not only as resistance to foreign pressure, but also as the rejection of internal constraints: fewer rules and fewer restrictions. Their political instinct places greater emphasis on personal and collective will than on institutional discipline. Experience shows that both peoples are ready to sacrifice for their version of independence. But because the meanings differ, the collision becomes nearly inevitable.

From this follows the most important issue for Russian policy after the conflict: how to combine these two interpretations within a framework that allows peaceful coexistence and, ideally, joint development. If there were a simple model of stable neighborliness between two independent states, it would likely have emerged over the past 30 years. It did not. And this suggests that the relationship cannot be treated as purely external or purely diplomatic. It contains a civilizational dimension that cannot simply be “closed.”

The roots of the problem are partly objective. After the collapse of the Old Russian state in the 13th century, Russia re-emerged as a new political organism in a different geographical space, between the Volga and Oka rivers. Ukrainian identity formed under far less stable conditions, under shifting foreign control and in struggle against it. This produced a political character shaped by instability, improvisation and resistance. Gogol captured this spirit when he described the “crowd” that grows into a people.

The differences between Russia and Ukraine are not simply the result of outside influence. They were shaped by geography and political development. When Russia regained strength and returned to historical Ukrainian lands, both modes of political thinking – the “Volga-Oka” and the “Dnieper” – became entangled within one larger historical space. For Russia, Ukraine became not only an external issue but also an internal one in its relations with the world.

For the last 350 years, Russians and Ukrainians were largely united. The relationship did not exclude conflict and rivalry and even bloody clashes appeared at various stages. Today, this confrontation is being exploited against Russia by powerful rivals, and it would be strange if the United States or Western Europe did not seize such an opportunity.

Yet there is no reason to assume Ukraine’s alignment with the West can sever its connection with the shared political civilization. Moreover, the West itself does not truly seek this. It wants Ukraine as a tool in competition with Russia, not as an equal partner with its own independent role. As long as conflict continues, Ukrainians will seek support from anyone willing to provide resources.

This is partly because Ukraine lacks a deep tradition of stable statehood. This gives Ukraine unusual flexibility: it can adopt forms of political behavior and institutional culture that are foreign to its deeper habits. Second, the tactical alliance with the West provides resources to defend Ukraine’s interpretation of independence. The demonstrative attempt to erase all traces of Russia is not a sophisticated historical policy so much as a manifestation of emotional fervor under extreme pressure.

It is foolish to believe Ukraine can become a fully-fledged “anti-Russia.” Its history and political culture are not comparable. At the same time, it is difficult to imagine that after territorial losses Ukraine will quickly build a stable, creative state next to Russia. This would require decades of relative peace.

Russia’s task is therefore longer-term. The conflict will eventually subside; criminals will be punished, and ordinary people will return to ordinary life. But the underlying relationship will remain. The only realistic hope is that after these trials, Russians and Ukrainians will eventually develop an understanding of how to move forward. Not through fantasy about cutting civilizational ties, but through a sober recognition of what they share, and what must be managed.

This article was first published by the magazine Profile and was translated and edited by the RT team.

You can share this story on social media: