Looking for an Identity

Travelers in general, and those coming to Ukraine in particular, tend to fall into two categories: those who arrive with such a baggage of stereotypes that they will spare no effort to confirm them, and those with so little previous knowledge that they can be convinced of anything. Being somewhere in between those categories (at least I like to think so), I arrived in Ukraine expecting to see the remnants of a post-Soviet civilization – one differing considerably from what can be equivocally defined as Europe. Curious about testing Huntington’s model of a world of civilizations in practice, I hoped to receive an answer to the very topical question: is Ukraine part of Europe or not?

A few years ago I would have answered “yes” without a moment’s hesitation. Being of East European origin myself (though I dislike the crude term, used to refer to people as different as Latvians and Albanians), I was leery of any condescending doctrines about “more” and “less” European countries. However, extensive travels around “Europe’s periphery” have led me to be more cautious in my judgments. Geography is insufficient to determine the identity of a country, though it would undoubtedly be in Ukraine’s favor – definitions of Europe dating back to Herodotus place its border on the Don or Rioni rivers (in Georgia), both encompassing Ukraine (the country even contains one of the geographical centers of Europe, located in Rakhiv, Zakarpattia oblast).

European identity, however, is a much more complex notion, involving more than “mere” historical and cultural affiliation, and as much about people’s present choices as their past.

What makes the debate about Ukraine’s European identity special is that it is based on a negative definition. Affirming its European identity is a way of reneging upon its Soviet past and asserting the independence of a nation held captive for centuries. However, such a definition risks falling on deaf ears in Brussels, where European integration is viewed as something based on institutional, social, economic, and political harmonization (and this remains the official party line, even in the light of current events). On an idealistic level, it requires a keen awareness of being part of the community. One of the arguments behind the previous enlargements was that the new members had such profound ties with “real” European countries that they were European by default. Unfortunately for Ukraine, this argument cannot be rolled over, not only because of weaker ties with its Western neighbors, but also because those neighbors belong to the questionable “peripheral Europe.” Thus, other justifications of belonging to the European community are imperative.

Yet Ukrainians’ attitudes about belonging to that community are ambiguous, as reflected in the widely used expression “going to Europe,” indicating that one is heading West. The term is typically used when going to Germany or France, but much less so in the case of Spain or Poland (and excluding Ukraine by default). This lack of identification with Europe is also reflected in the term yevropeizatsia (Europeanization). Already an amorphous concept to begin with, the word takes on a whole new definition in Ukraine, where it is mainly used in the context of achieving certain levels of development (typically economic and social), rather than the process of harmonizing societies, values and institutions. European Standard is a ubiquitous marketing slogan, which, in a way, best depicts the understanding of the EU as a place of higher quality of life, as opposed to a historically and culturally united community.

The “European” visitor may also be surprised by the lack of debates about national issues among regular people, at least relative to neighboring countries such as Poland or Hungary, where bickering about past wrongs and present feuds is ubiquitous. Without a doubt, this stems from decades of Soviet rule, during which such discourse was cut short and severely punished. Hearing a heated argument or even respectful debate about national policies remains a rarity, revealing a sense of dissociation and despondency about ongoing events. One of the most prominent features of the European identity is having an opinion about everything and knowing what is best for everybody. This arrogance is a problem at least as often as it is a blessing, yet it remains one of the foundations of Europe’s greatest achievements.

A notion often brought up in the media and political sermons alike is that Ukraine is a bridge between East and West, something other European countries have also claimed in the past. A word of caution: this kind of strategy has been undertaken several times already by countries bordering upon two cultural spheres, notably Turkey and Mexico. Both claimed to be able to act as intermediaries between two worlds, both lost their positions and ended up as cleft countries. Global politics, like business, tends to cut out the middleman. Should Ukraine try to build itself a niche between the European and Eurasian blocs, it will end up being ostracized by both.

Thus, the question of Ukraine’s identity remains open. Meanwhile, “Ukraine fatigue” is spreading through European capitals and many, in Ukraine and abroad, wonder about the right way to go. Ukrainians can and deserve to join the European community of nations. However, this takes more than improving economic or social standards. It requires adherence to European values and a decisive stand on the issue. Politicians are often blamed for failing to implement promised reforms and taking real steps towards integration. This is true. But, and despite all proof to the contrary, Europe is ultimately a community of peoples, not their leaders.