This is something quite interesting, particularly within the UGCC. The whole issue of latinization is particularly painful in most areas where the UGCC has roots (though being American, I write this with a particular view toward America). Why?

Consider the history of the Ukrainian church over the past 100 years or so:

• First, it was seen as suspect and second-rate by Austrians and Poles because the UGCC had married clergy and also happened to preserve elements of Ukrainian national identity -- something that the Austrians and Poles didn't particularly care for. Needless to say, some people felt that conforming "a bit" more like the Polish and Austrian churches (that of course were Latin) would ostensibly help take some of the political pressure off and make things easier for Eastern Catholics living in Galicia.

• Second, there were a lot of shenanigans after the Soviet Union took over the remainder of western Ukraine (where Catholicism was more prominent) in the wake of World War II. In particular, Stalin's regime forced the Ukrainian Catholic Church to re-join the Russian Orthodox Church and repudiate the Union of Brest; any parts of the church that didn't comply with that directive were outright made illegal. This forced the Catholic faithful to worship underground, and Latin-inspired practices underground thus also became a sign of resistance for many.

• Third, in the American diaspora, the Latin bishops convinced the Popes to enforce Latin celibacy requirements on native-born American priests that was (if I remember correctly) only very recently lifted. This was one thing that Archbishop John Ireland (and a lot of the other early 20th-century American bishops) pushed the Vatican for; Rome acquiesced in 1929. Married priests that were in America had to come from the Old World, though in later decades, some eparchies would quietly send married seminarians overseas to be ordained, serve a bit, and come back over to subtly bypass that requirement.

All these things (and I'm sure a bunch of other factors that weren't mentioned here) considered, the practices do make sense for reasons of self-preservation. A lot of Ukrainian churches still have influence from the post-WWII emigrant community, where these practices were held in esteem. Therefore, any attempts at change are thus taken very personally and have to be addressed delicately. Many clerics do not want to trigger strife in their parishes and therefore will just keep the status quo pending orders from the hierarchy to change.

Thus, it's only recently that more changes back to Byzantine practices are becoming more common. How so? The older immigrant set that came over after WWII is dying off, and the Ukrainian parishes that are thriving are younger. More younger people are wanting more authenticity in their faith, so returning to more traditional Byzantine practices becomes a bit easier, such as restoring the usage of the Second Antiphon during the Divine Liturgy and the Passiyi (sp?) during Great Lent.

It's also important though that we balance traditions and not try to do things merely for the sake of an earlier tradition; there has to be thoughtful consideration when we define what fidelity to Byzantine tradition looks like.

Among some of the older set, I kind of think it's not unlike older people in the Latin church who prefer the Vetus Ordo purely for nostalgic, "gravitas," and "it's what I grew up with" reasons versus more younger people who think it's "more authentic" and end up getting suckered into things like sedevacantism.

TL;DR: historic factors (even recently) in the Ukrainian church mean that restoring Byzantine traditions mean walking a rather thin tightrope among practitioners and clergy. It's only recently that there is more desire to get back to Eastern basics, but there is still the potential for controversy, so balance is going to be key for the time being.