• According to the survey carried out by the Sociological Group "Rating", 79% of the citizens believe that the 1932-33 Holodomor was the Ukrainian people genocide. This statement is shared by the vast majority of the West and Center residents (92% and 83% respectively) and the relative majority of the South and East (69% and 67%). The rural residents, those younger, and the Ukrainian speaking are more likely to support this thesis. Within the long-term dynamics, since 2010, the percentage of those who recognize the Holodomor as the genocide has increased by a third.
• 69% of the respondents are positive towards the US Senate recognition of the 1932-1933 Holodomor as the Ukrainian people genocide, and 62% of the polled believe that Ukraine should continue to seek international recognition of the Holodomor-genocide. Again, both of these initiatives are more supported by the residents of the Western and Central macro regions, rural citizens, and those who speak Ukrainian at home.
• 68% of the polled said that this year they would light a candle on the Holodomor Memorial Day in memory of the famine victims, 21% said they would not do it. This initiative finds more support in the West and Center (84% and 70% respectively). Likewise, more than a half of the polled in the South and East also indicated that they would take part in this campaign.
• J.Stalin is believed to bear the greatest personal guilt for organization of the Holodomor - 47% of the respondents think so (42% in 2008), the central USSR authorities - 39% (in 2008 - 38%). 28% (in 2008 - 23%) blame the USSR execution bodies (NKVD, GPU) for this genocide, 23% (in 2008 - 17%) - the top authorities of the Soviet Ukraine. Only 3% stated that those responsible for the Holodomor were the Ukrainian villagers (rich peasants) who refused to voluntarily give away their crops. The fact that the Holodomor was caused by natural causes is supported by less than 5% (in 2008 - 11%). Interestingly, the personal fault of J.Stalin for organizing the Holodomor in Ukraine was more often noted by the residents of the Western and Central regions. Instead, the guilt of Soviet law enforcement institutions and government bodies was often spoken by the residents of the West and Center, as well as the East. The respondents in the South were less likely than the others to blame the Soviet leaders; they also more often hesitated to answer or noted that the Holodomor was caused by unfavorable natural causes.
• Over the last 10 years, the support of the idea of conducting a trial over the 1932-33 Holodomor perpetrators has increased from 37% to 48%, and the approval of the initiative to provide compensation for the genocide victims and their families - from 46% to 63%. Likewise to the previous statements, these initiatives are more supported in the West and Center, among rural residents, and Ukrainian speakers.
• Among the historical figures, Bohdan Khmelnytsky (73%) and Mykhailo Hrushevsky (68%) are perceived the best by the respondents. Also, 53% demonstrate a positive attitude towards Ivan Mazepa.
• 47% and 43% reveal a positive attitude towards Leonyd Brezhnev and Petro I (negative - 39% and 26% respectively). Positive attitude towards Stepan Bandera is 36% (negative - 34%), Symon Petlyura gains 30% of positive rates and the same number of negative.
• Volodymyr Lenin and Mikhaylo Gorbachev ate treated rather negatively than positively (a quarter of positive rates and 51-52% of negative). Attitude towards Joseph Stalin is the worst - 21% of positive rates and 58% of negative.
• Over the last 6 years, the attitude towards Ukrainian historical figures has generally improved. Attitude towards Stalin and Lenin almost has not changed, towards Petro I – has worsen. Significant differences in perception of the Russian and Soviet historical figures within the macro regional cut are observed. Thus, they are much better perceived in the Southern and Eastern regions. The exception is Gorbachev - he is better perceived in the West. On the other hand, such figures as Petlyura and Bandera are better perceived in the West. Instead, Khmelnytsky and Hrushevsky are equally well perceived by the residents of all parts of Ukraine.
Audience: residents of Ukraine aged 18 and older. The sample is representative in terms of age, gender, region, and settlement type. Total sample: 2000 respondents. Personal formalized interview (face-to-face). The margin of error does not exceed 2.2%. Period of the survey: 20-29 October 2018.