The distinction between patriotism and ethnocentrism serves as a vital framework for understanding the Ukrainian struggle. Patriotism is widely characterized as a “good-natured” force of love and service that fosters “horizontal networks of trust”. It acts as a shield , uniting citizens of various backgrounds and providing the emotional resilience needed to endure “cold evenings and long nights”.
In contrast, ethnocentrism—the belief in inherent group superiority —is viewed with greater caution. While some argue it serves as a “defensive reaction” and a “shield for national identity” during decolonization , many warn it is a “trap”. Critics argue it can lead to arrogance , cause us to “underestimate the enemy” , and “worsen partnerships” with international allies who support Ukraine for its democratic values rather than claims of superiority.
Evelin Shults:
While ethnocentrism is connected with patriotism, patriotism doesn’t have to lead to ethnocentrism. It is important for us as Ukrainians to group as a community to survive this war, and patriotism can be another helpful tool in this process. But our country, as unfortunate as it sounds, is currently dependent on help from other countries, and by embracing ethnocentric ideas, it would only worsen those partnerships. Ethnocentrism is also one of the causes of colonialism, and thus why it’s our duty, as a nation that tries to separate from it’s colonialistic neighbor, to reject ethnocentrism from our mentality to become better as people and a country.
Oleksandra Lutsenko:
Pride gives us the energy to keep going. However, we must see the difference between two feelings that look similar but act very differently: patriotism and ethnocentrism. Patriotism is like a shield that protects us. Ethnocentrism is like a blindfold that stops us from seeing clearly. To win, we need patriotism, not ethnocentrism.
Patriotism is simply the love of home. It is not about hating other people; it is about protecting what is ours. This is the energy that makes ordinary people do extraordinary things. It makes a teacher help the army, or a programmer dig a trench. This feeling is strong because it is real. It is about saving our families and our land. Also, true patriotism brings everyone together. It does not matter what language you speak or where you were born. If you love this country and want to defend it, you are on the same side. This unity makes us strong.
On the other hand, ethnocentrism is a trap. This is the belief that “my people are naturally better than your people.” It focuses on hating the enemy instead of loving your home. This is dangerous for a few reasons. First, it makes us underestimate the enemy. If we think the enemy is stupid or weak just because of who they are, we might stop being careful. We might think winning is easy. History shows that wars are won by people who take their enemy seriously, not by people who mock them.
Also, ethnocentrism can hurt our relationships with other countries. Right now, the world supports us because we are fighting for freedom and democracy. These are values that everyone understands. But if we start acting like we are superior to everyone else, we might lose our friends. Allies want to help a nation that fights for justice, not a nation that fights because it thinks it is the “best race.”
In the end, the difference is simple. Patriotism is confidence; ethnocentrism is arrogance. Patriotism knows we have something precious to lose. Ethnocentrism thinks we cannot lose. As we continue this hard fight, we must stay patriots. We should be driven by love and stay united. That is how a free nation wins the war and builds a good future.
Viktoriia Kartun:
Patriotism and ethnocentrism are two profound concepts, related in more ways than one, that can be easily mixed up in a conversation, yet also influence our cruel reality in completely different ways. To fully understand the true meaning of these concepts, however, we must first draw a clear line between their meanings.
Patriotism is usually described as the feeling of loving your country more than any others and being proud of it. It is a good-natured feeling that helps us appreciate our country and everything it has given to us more than what other countries have to offer. True patriotism, when not influenced by questionable ideals, helps us unite within our country in a time of need and do our utmost to defend our motherland from harm and devastation. Patriotism is something that helps Ukraine stay strong up to this day, overcoming all obstacles on its way to victory.
Ethnocentrism, however, is a starkly different concept, often defined as the belief that the people, customs, and traditions of your race or country are better than those of other races or countries. While patriotism emphasizes the love and appreciation for your country, ethnocentrism persuades the person into thinking that their country is vastly superior to other cultures and races. Patriotism reinforces the need to fight for your country out of the sheer love for it, while ethnocentrism makes you believe that your country is already ideal, and doesn’t need your intervention into its fate. This leads me to be certain in the fact that while patriotism has helped Ukraine constantly fight for nearly four years already, ethnocentrism only interferes with our way to true victory.
Mariia Nazarenko:
I believe that in the current predicament the Ukrainian people are facing, both ethnocentrism and patriotism are highly beneficial. Patriotism serves as a powerful force that unites people, motivates them to act, and encourages collective effort. Unity is essential for preserving independence and cultural identity, something the people of Ukraine have continuously demonstrated since the full-scale war began in our country. Feelings of patriotism also help sustain morale, which is especially important during increasingly difficult times when people may begin to succumb to melancholy and hopelessness. Patriotism plays a crucial role not only in strengthening national unity but also in supporting emotional resilience. In moments of crisis, it helps people remain connected to their values, their culture, and one another, enabling them to endure and continue striving for a shared future.
Maria Serebryanska:
Patriotism and ethnocentrism play a significant role in contemporary struggles, especially for Ukrainians during the Russian full-scale invasion. Patriotism has enabled Ukrainians to unite, defend their sovereignty, and preserve their national identity in the face of aggression. Devotion to one’s homeland has motivated citizens to volunteer, support the armed forces, and resist attempts to eradicate Ukrainian culture and independence. In this sense, patriotism is a powerful and indispensable force that reinforces society.
However, ethnocentrism can be more detrimental. While valuing one’s cultural heritage is natural, believing that one group is inherently superior to others can intensify hostility and legitimize violence. In the context of the war, extreme ethnocentric ideologies have been used to deny Ukraine’s right to exist as a nation. This demonstrates how ethnocentrism can interfere with peace and mutual understanding.
Therefore, patriotism helps the struggle for freedom when it is based on respect and unity, but ethnocentrism often harms it by promoting division and intolerance.
Anna Nazarenko:
Patriotism and ethnocentrism can both help and interfere, depending on how they are expressed and understood.
Patriotism often plays a positive role in times of struggle. It unites people around shared history, values, and responsibility for the future. It can encourage resilience, solidarity, and willingness to protect what is important. When patriotism allows space for reflection and improvement, it becomes a constructive force that helps society stay strong and cohesive.
Ethnocentrism, on the other hand, is more problematic. In situations where a nation’s identity, language, or culture is under threat, a strong focus on one’s own group can help preserve that identity. However, when ethnocentrism turns into a belief in superiority or exclusion of others, it begins to interfere. It limits empathy, increases hostility, and can deepen divisions both within a society and between nations.
In today’s struggle, the distinction between the two is crucial. Inclusive, value-based patriotism supports unity and long-term stability, while extreme ethnocentrism risks undermining these goals by promoting intolerance and isolation.
Overall, patriotism tends to be a necessary and supportive force, whereas ethnocentrism requires careful control to ensure it does not cause more harm than good.
Olha Hrybivska:
Nowadays patriotism can be a powerful help, but ethnocentrism might interfere. Patriotism rallies people, sustains morale and rapid civil resilience in wartime, strengthening society and its recovery. Ethnocentrism, however, risks excluding ethnic or linguistic minorities, weakening democratic pluralism, which hurts social cohesion and international support. Ethnocentric definitions of “us” can undermine the very unity and legitimacy we need.
Yelyzaveta Zavorotna:
I believe that patriotism is more crucial than ever, as it unites people and gives us the strength to continue struggling for independence. People are constantly losing their loved ones in the war, so it is necessary to support the army and donate for a better future.
It is essential to protect our culture and heritage, remember who we are by our nature, and defend our identity.
V.:
Patriotism can be dangerous when people think it gives their country the right to treat other ones as inferior. However, Ukraine today is not in a position where we can attack anyone. On the contrary, we are trying to survive. I think patriotic feelings are normal in this situation.
Alona Yakovenko:
I believe we must be careful not to confuse deep patriotism with superficial displays. When the focus shifts solely to symbols or linguistic purity, we risk alienating good people rather than mobilizing them. True patriotism shouldn’t divide; it should be the fuel that charges us to take real, crucial action. It is this constructive energy that the state relies on to maintain our resilience, and it is what will ultimately help us succeed
M.:
When a person grows up in one culture, ethnocentrism is inevitable. The person simply has nothing else to compare themselves to and forms their worldview based on what they have. This comparison is especially relevant to people who were forced to leave their country as refugees and come face to face with reality of their new place of residence. Their ethnocentrism can be a bit inconvenient and even harmful, because it makes it more difficult to adapt.
Of course, it is really important to be conscious about how you perceive the world, to be aware of what is normal in your new environment. However, habits are habits, and culture shock is unavoidable, especially when it is supplemented with the literal trauma of war and being torn apart from your home.
Denis Vinnik:
Patriotism and ethnocentrism mean a lot to our struggle today. Do you think they help us or interfere?
Since the beginning of mankind, people have always felt closure towards their places of habitation. They felt a sense of its uniqueness and pride, feeling homesick when they took some time away from home. While it makes sense that this kind of patriotism exists, the question remains: does ethnocentrism interfere with our lives?
So, what are the advantages and disadvantages of patriotism to any community? On one hand, patriotism helped countries develop since when people feel a sense of being in debt to their countries for providing them a place to call home, they try to work harder in order to keep it that way for generations to come. Moreover, patriotism makes cultures flourish. If people didn’t feel a sense that their tribes were unique, they wouldn’t have developed as many different cultures as they have. On the other hand, it may bring more suffering to the world. What makes one culture unique makes it also different from the other and people hate when something is different or not like what they are used to. Different cultures may have different ideas and different ideas inadvertently lead to conflicts. Worst of all, it can be used as a mean to control people with the usage of mass media, censorship and propaganda.
In conclusion, while patriotism may increase the productivity of its citizens, especially if they are satisfied with their living conditions, it may also be a tool for people in charge to control the lower classes of the population
Mariia Sydorenko:
In Ukraine’s fight for life, patriotism and ethnocentrism are both needed. Patriotism unites people of all backgrounds, while focusing on our culture helps us protect our identity.
Our country is being defended not only by Ukrainians but also by other nationalities as well, such as Crimean Tatars, Jews, Americans, and others. Soldiers leave their homeland and come here because a common goal unites them, not blood.
Moreover, patriotism creates horizontal networks of trust (volunteers, fundraisers, neighbors repairing shell damage) among society. This “grassroots patriotism” replaces bureaucracy in critical moments, allowing the society to function even when the state infrastructure is damaged.
Ethnocentrism is an integral part of our struggle for decolonization, serving as a shield for our distinct national identity. While currently heightened, this intensity is a natural defensive reaction to the threat. Over time, as our security is assured, it will stabilize into a healthy equilibrium.
For sure, for many soldiers the motivation is deeply ancestral—defending the specific land of their forefathers. This deep, primal connection often provides the grit needed to endure trench warfare that abstract “democratic values” might not sustain alone.
Finally, Ukraine’s strength comes from both unity and history. We cannot win with just one. Together, they give us the strength to win the war and build a free future.
Myroslava M.
If you had asked me this question at the very beginning of the full-scale war, I would have strongly disagreed with the statement and answered “No.” However, life is never stable, and circumstances constantly change, so I now believe that balance in every sphere of life should be. Before discussing this topic, the first thing to clarify is your personal understanding of what “patriotism” really means. For me, it is an objective perception of current reality without idealizing political or financial issues. For example, I was shocked when I read about funds allocated for drums in shelters. Deputies didn’t even bother to create adequate explanations. They clearly do not care about how their electorate perceives their actions, and it is obvious why society is becoming angry. In my opinion, patriotic songs like “В нас нема тепла, проте є добро” , memes, and merch and so on with the Ukrainian flag lost their effectiveness. At the start of the election, the electorate symbols helped calm society and strengthen the fighting spirit. But now, after so many months of uncertainty and exhaustion, the community is tired of waiting for the war to end. The government strongly needs alternative ideas and practical solutions. Deputies failed due to corruption and they no longer deserve the public’s trust. Of course, it is easy to sing about patriotism from a safe distance, for example, from Poland, saying “we want the borders of 1991,” while we are sitting in the cold for long hours. But true patriotism today requires responsibility and a focus on practical support for society.
Dina Kylunchenko:
Collective loyalty to the country, the decision to preserve territorial indivisibility, and innate hostility to the invaders were causes invoked to take joint and separate actions by Ukrainians in the first days of the war against Russia. As no one can encroach upon whatever nation rights and freedoms, honor, and dignity. In addition, it is feasible to assume that patriotism might strengthen the wish to hold meetings, rallies, and processions to do substantiated deals to make the country flourish. In the state of war, “patriotism” and “ethnocentrism” are terms that should not be characterized indistinctly and are something that bring a detrimental effect on the nation’s cohesion. Simply, there is no bad in the point that for each nation, their nationality, customs, and traditions are superior to others. Nevertheless, here we have slim boundaries not to impose our own upon others in a supercilious way. At the same time, it is crucial to not let misunderstandings and conflicts arise to distort tranquil humanity. By our sense of affection and duty, we are gathering together. It might be assumed that these two notions and sense of belonging assist us to cope every time with unfavorable occurrences. Because it raises the willingness to work for inspiring well-being.
Polina Kostina:
In today’s Ukraine, it has become apparent that patriotism and ethnocentrism play a crucial part in people’s consciousness and self-identification. However, while some speculate that this is a good thing, others claim that love for the country might have negative consequences for citizens’ psyches.
First off, we need to get out of the way the differences between patriotism and ethnocentrism: while the first describes the feeling of attachment and love for one’s country, the second term is used to describe the belief that one’s own ethnic group, culture, or nationality is inherently superior to others. Obviously, extreme patriotism can easily transform into ethnocentrism, which in turn creates bigotry and ‘us vs them’ mentality. Still, patriotism on its own isn’t a bad thing, which we see in Ukraine.
Since the start of Crimea’s occupation back in 2014 and even earlier, russian propaganda forces started actively churning out about the insignificance of Ukraine, and how Ukrainians have no culture and history. To this day, they argue that the Ukrainian language is a derivative dialect of russian, and therefore the inhabitants of Ukraine should have no arguments against being subjugated by russia. However, those who are patriotic are aware that this claim regarding language is nothing but a fable, since they are interested in the history of Ukraine. By learning their countries’ traditions and background, they have developed a metaphorical immunity to russian propaganda.
Overall, while people should always be cautious around the belief that one country is fundamentally better than the other, Ukrainians being all for the distribution of their unique customs is not a bad thing, and in fact, helps them understand the complete falsity of the russian narrative about Ukraine’s lack of culture.
Daria Kozlova:
Patriotism is, first and foremost, Love. But it is a Love that gives birth to Action (“Chyn” in Ukrainian). It is a Love that binds one to Service and Resilience; otherwise, it remains hollow. Love with Hatred, Pain, and often Shame. This is a Love that can only be awakened; it cannot be taught.
There is nothing more repulsive than “sentimental patriots”—those capable of nothing more than posting flags on social media or shedding tears over the nation’s “bitter fate.” This feigned, ignorant patriotism is harmful. It devalues the essence of the word and distorts the image of the true Patriot: the Person of Duty, driven by a clearly defined goal and a mission placed upon their shoulders by thousands of ancestors standing behind them.
In our current struggle, this Duty evolves into Positive Ethnocentrism. Drawing from vision of “rootedness”, we must understand that a people can only survive if they remain faithful to their biological, cultural, and spiritual origins. Ethnocentrism is the vital concentration on one’s own essence.
Like the metaphor of the Tree, we are the leaves, and our strength is drawn solely from the Roots. In this “century of storms,” ethnocentrism does not interfere; it sustains! It replaces abstract universalism with organic solidarity. To be rooted means to stand tall and firm, ensuring that our Promethean spirit does not flicker out, but undergoes a magnificent metamorphosis toward victory.
Daria Odintsova:
As a historian, those topics come up a lot during my studies, and are pivotal in our current situation.
Firstly, ethnocentrism is as harmful as it is helpful. We have to distinguish our own nation aside from russians, but we must not divide citizens of Ukraine based on their ethnicity. If a person supports their country and lives there, then they are a citizen regardless of their heritage.
As for patriotism, it is a vital tool against our oppressors. We must stay united and loyal to our country, so that there will be no grounds for russians to take our territories.
To summarize, both phenomena are crucial parts of the ongoing war, and people should tread carefully, not to divide the already unstable mentality we have inside.
Valeria Bohdan:
The situation in Ukraine has changed drastically in a short period of time. Nowadays, many people strive to distance themselves from russian influence. This shift has been so dramatic that most individuals have abandoned their former connections and preferences almost immediately.
Ukrainian patriotism had been strong long before the full-scale invasion; however, these circumstances brought a wave of new perspectives. We realized that even though Ukraine had been politically independent, many people were still influenced and manipulated by russian mass media. It felt as if the nation had opened its eyes. Society became more united and faced difficulties together, which gave people the strength to live and fight for freedom.
Yet, this process has not been identical for all individuals across Ukraine. Some people do not agree with ethnocentric views, which has led to heated debates within society. In certain cases, these discussions have resulted in excessive judgment and division among citizens. Nevertheless, patriotism has always played a crucial role in Ukraine’s struggle, as it helps people remain united and resilient during challenging times.
Daria Shvidka:
During power cuts, cold evenings, and long nights without electricity, patriotism is felt in small but meaningful actions. It is when people share candles, charge each other’s phones, bring tea to neighbors, and continue studying or working despite the darkness. In these moments, patriotism is not loud or aggressive; it is quiet, patient, and deeply human.
Ethnocentrism, however, can interfere if it turns suffering into a reason to blame or exclude others. When people focus only on “us” and “them,” it can increase anger instead of resilience. Our reality shows that survival depends not on feeling superior, but on mutual support and understanding.
In my opinion, patriotism helps our struggle when it teaches us solidarity and endurance. Ethnocentrism becomes harmful when it limits empathy. Even without light, what truly keeps us going is shared responsibility, kindness, and faith in each other.
Oleksandra Kriukova:
During the full-scale war in Ukraine, patriotism and ethnocentrism have become especially visible.
The war affects not only our country but the whole of Europe, even if many europeans do not fully realize it. In such circumstances, being a patriot is about protecting our Motherland through language, culture and memory. Culture is one of the main reasons we are fighting for because if we forget who we are and where we come from, the suffering and sacrifices lose their meaning. Of particular importance now is the language issue, around which disputes are still ongoing. Language is the most important component of our culture, so speaking the state language, preserving traditions and sharing national culture are acts of our resistance.
However, ethnocentrism is more complex than patriotism. On one hand, focusing on one’s own culture can help preserve national identity during times of threat. On the other hand, extreme ethnocentrism may interfere with dialogue, solidarity and international support. Although ethnocentrism has now become quite a popular phenomenon in Ukraine due to the gap between neighboring countries due to war and misunderstanding because of it, cooperation and mutual insights are keys towards facing a powerful aggressor.
In conclusion, patriotism clearly helps our struggle by uniting people around shared values, language and history. Ethnocentrism, however, must remain balanced. When it protects culture without rejecting others, it can be constructive, but when it becomes radical, it risks underestimating the freedom we are fighting for.”
