If a person’s grandfather, grand mother, great aunt and uncle all died horribly in starvation because of the russians, very few of these persons would be completely mollified if a few of their fellow countrymen attained high positions in the Russia government.There is a point to this. However, without USSR, Ukraine would just be agrian backwaters with no industry nor technology. Collectivization was not exclusive to Ukraine, but why do they insist that it is while ignoring the fact that key positions of Soviet leadership were held by Ukrainians across multiple generations? Not to mention a significant portions of Soviet industries and education/research facilities were in Ukraine, but they ran them into the ground after USSR collapsed.
as to ukraine would be agrian backwater without the USSR, that is both highly debatable, and immaterial to the amount of outrage Soviet action embed in Ukrainian society. This is because:
1. Very few places in Europe outside the area of influence of the former USSR really are agrIan backwaters withou no Industry and technology today. Some of these parts of europe were hardly more developed in 1915, before WWI and the Soviet Union, than Ukraine. So without the USSR, why would those other areas develop but not Ukraine?
2. No country easily admits to the significance of contributions made by an much resented enemy to its own progress. Without the west China would also remain a feudal backwater. Do the Chinese then think the west did right during the opium war? Neither would the Ukrainians feel good about the Russians.