“The three mortal enemies…”

In the previous issue, we offered our readers the article “Moscow, Maroseika” by George Shevelov, which was first published in Boston in 1954. The author outlines the “three mortal enemies” that hinder Ukrainian renaissance – Moscow, Kochubei-style mentality, and Ukrainian provincialism.

We have long been speaking about the many problems of Ukrainian historical content, especially the attitude of the government to the historical memory policy, education of youth, and the cherishing of traditions. Even if some decisions have been to this effect, it usually boiled down to things like marking Freedom Day simultaneously with Unity Day.

Which is not the case with the Russian. It has so happened that Russia announced 2012 as Year of Russian History. It is not the first “historic” decision of the Russian leadership aimed at fostering patriotism in youth. There have also been decrees “On Establishing a Commission under the President of Russia to Counter the Attempts to Falsify History to the Detriment of Russia’s Interests,” “On Marking the 1,150th Anniversary of the Birth of Russian Statehood,” et al.

While the Russians are making quite right decisions from the angle of Russia’s humanitarian policy interests (the problem is how this is being done and what is being taken as the basis), our humanitarian policy lacks a systemic approach and does not promote cultivating patriotism. Why? In this context, we have requested some of our contemporaries to expand on Shevelov’s three abovementioned points. To what extent do they think the problem of the “three enemies” is topical today?

“ALL UKRAINAIN PROBLEMS AND UNCERTAINTIES CAN BE PUT DOWN TO THESE THREE ‘ENEMIES’”

Myroslav POPOVYCH, Doctor of Sciences (Philosophy); full member, National Academy of Sciences, Ukraine; Director, Hryhorii Skovoroda Institute of Philosophy:

“Russia is now making a strenuous effort to bind together the history of the regions that are not linked to each other at all. Why, for example, should Tatarstan, which has never been Russia’s ally or loyal and conquered territory, rejoice over Russian History Day? It is a serious problem for Russia. For Ukraine, the question of history is not so difficult, and we do not have the problem of binding together the history of different nooks of Ukraine. Instead, we had in the past a lot of knotty, from the viewpoint of today, problems and all kinds of ethnic conflicts between the Tatars, Poles, Jews, and Russians. But, after all, moments like this can be traced in the history of every nation – they are not exceptional for Ukraine in this sense and need no great intellectual efforts. For Russia, though, the only way to gain at least something, even fictional, is Eurasianism. Eurasianism is in fact the groundwork on which the Russian national ideology is developing.

“As I have already said, Ukraine does not have such serious challenges, but, for some reason, we show shamefully low enthusiasm to tackle the arising problems. The impression is that the Ukrainians are not aware of the basis on which they should develop their own national potential. But I would also mark the Crimean Tatars, not only the Ukrainians, in this connection.

“While the Nachtigal battalion was the only Ukrainian national military unit to maintain ties with the Germans, several divisions of Russian General Vlasov openly sided with the German army. This is a thing that absolutely all should know to prevent the making of new historical monsters that will cause nothing but harm. So I would call upon everybody to always refer to Ukrainian history which should be brought into line with all the other ethnic or national histories.

“It sometimes seems to me that no one but the newspaper Den/The Day cares about the true identity and history of the Ukrainians. Obviously, we must create conditions for a public discussion of ticklish historical problems. If only the authorities care about problems and address them the way they wish, there will be no good result no matter what political leadership is in power. Passions about the nation and its history are absolutely alien to the current helmsmen of Ukraine. The ruling party is the owner of enormous financial and industrial capital which takes no interest in this kind of matters. It is learned intellectuals, political writers, and the academe, rather than presidents or prime ministers, who should tackle certain historical issues. In this respect, I saw no interesting events in 2011 except for a scandal about awarding Vasyl Shkliar the Shevchenko Prize. The ultimate truth is that one should not be given a prize for a good deed and a whipping for a bad one – there must be conditions under which the leading specialists could make society understand its own history.

“The three ‘enemies’ of Ukraine’s renaissance – Moscow, the Kochubei-style mentality, and provincialism, – which George Shevelov once wrote about, still exist today. Moreover, I will dare say that all the Ukrainian problems and uncertainties can be put down to these three ‘enemies.’ They will hinder the national development until we do away with our real backwardness, provincialism, and the resulting complexes that bring forth historical and cultural monsters.”

“WE DO NOT KNOW HOW TO HOLD THE STATE BACK”

Yevhen HRYTSIAK, leader of the 1953 Norilsk uprising:

“In general, I like Shevelov. He was once quite right to say that the Ukrainian language would only revive when it became prestigious. It should be official and interesting for everybody. Nobody will be learning it just for being melodious. I fully agree with him. I’ve read the article ‘Moscow, Maroseika.’

“Moscow has always been our enemy. Let me give you some examples. When I arrived at the Rozaivka prison in Mordovia, a cell mate told me he was a Donetsk-based engineer, Orlov, who had been sentenced to seven years for being the member of a Russian underground democratic party. It was back in the Soviet era. Then I introduced myself: I said I was a repeat convict, had already been to Norilsk, and sentenced to 25 years. Then he says: ‘Good Lord, how come we haven’t met before? You would have been of use for us – you have such experience! All you would have had to do is lie low and tell us what to do, and 25 brave guys would have been guarding you.’ He so much admired me! Then he says: ‘And now I will tell you about our plans, program, and so on.’ He took a piece of paper and a pencil and wrote the encircled word ‘God’ at the top. This meant we should not touch upon God so far. He drew all kinds of squares and lines – in a word, he drew the entire plan. And he was talking and commenting all the way. I suddenly saw there was no Ukraine there. I ask him: ‘What place do you assign to Ukraine?’ He says: ‘Are you crazy? Do you understand what Russia means without Ukraine? It is no longer Russia.’ So I said to him: ‘Then you are in a fix. We do not think so.’ We spoke no more. We left early next morning without even saying goodbye. See the way they are set against Ukraine? Yet he considered himself a Russian democrat.

“I also talked with others on this matter. I can remember a Russian sitting on the bunk and telling me there was no difference between Ukraine and Russia. Naturally, I did not agree with him. This lasted for a long time. At last he was told to leave the cell to be deported to another prison, and, standing by the door, he turned back to me and said, shaking a finger: ‘Think it over.’ Frankly speaking, I felt like hurling a shoe at this man, but the door had closed behind him.

“I once also spoke with two Muscovites at a Vladimir prison. They were picking at me for our nationalism and said that it was we, western Ukrainians, who wanted an independent Ukraine, while the entire eastern part wanted to be part of Russia. Then they say they’ll hold a plebiscite in Ukraine and… I say in reply: ‘You’d better hold a plebiscite in your country and mind your own problems, and we will hold a plebiscite on our own.’ We were so much uptight about this that I had to step aside and ask to be transferred to another cell.

“As for Ukrainian provincialism, I would say we usually display the ‘it’s no business of mine’ complex. Even the OUN, which was a highly patriotic organization, did not fit in, for some reason, with international politics – we only stewed in our own juice. Our national disease is inability to hold back the state. The Polish revived their state after being dependent for 200 years. But we, even now that we are independent, are unable to revive our statehood. Laws do not work, and a citizen can get no protection from the state. We do not pursue a clear-cut policy – as the Ukrainians say, ‘Some have gone to the woods, and some to the devil.’ We don’t know who and what we are.

“Now about the Kochubei complex. Take, for example, Semen Paliy who went to war for Peter I against Ukraine, against Mazepa. We not only fail to support our leaders but often betray them to save our skin. For example, once, when I fought in WW II, I met a Ukrainian soldier, older than me, who came from Alma-Ata. He spoke Ukrainian very well and we shared the same views. We were aware that Moscow was our enemy and we were fighting for it, while other Ukrainians – on the other side – were fighting for the Germans. As we know from history, Austria and Russia were fighting and the Ukrainians were dying. I asked that sergeant: ‘Why is it so? Why are we fighting for our enemies?’ ‘Don’t you know? So listen,’ said he. He told me a joke. The World War I is in progress. Soldiers of all armies are being encouraged not to fear death: should anybody be killed on the battlefield, he will immediately go to heaven without any problems. Now, a Briton, a German, and a Ukrainian have been killed and found themselves in front of the gate to paradise. They knocked. Saint Peter came out and asked: ‘Who are you? What do you wish?’ They say: ‘We were killed on the front line. We were told we could get to paradise.’ St. Peter says: ‘Yes, there is a provision like this, but we admit only those who know what they died for.’ And he asks the Brit: ‘What did you die for?’ The latter says: ‘For the empire. ‘OK, we accept you,’ St. Peter answers. ‘And what did you die for?’ he asks the German. The latter says: ‘For discipline.’ ‘All right, come in,’ St. Peter says, letting him go. Then he asks the Ukrainian: ‘And what did you die for?’ The Ukrainian scratches the back of his head and says: ‘Well, I don’t know… They promised to give us land and something else…’ St. Peter answers: ‘We do not take in those who do not know what they fought for.’

“It will take us a lot of time to get rid of these complexes. Zhirinovsky once said 80,000 murders annually occur in Russia. They constantly fight one another, but when it comes to defending Russia, they all stick together. But we are different: we do not know what we want.”

“WE LACK OUR OWN EGO”

Leonid KRAVCHUK, first President of Ukraine:

“I can remember some Russian prizes that were awarded for the best historical pictures, artworks, and literature. They were awarded, above all, for such works as, say, Kulikovo Field, i.e., about the historical events that promoted patriotism in Russia and cultivated in the people pride for the fact that Russia’s history is so great and mighty, and this resulted in the opinion that this history must continue, things should be today the way they used to be, and Russia should be one of those that have a great history and deserve a dignified place in a globalized world. In other words, they regard history, the past, as Russia’s tomorrow.

“They also continue to misappropriate not only the expanses of, say, today’s Russia but also – territorially, mentally, and literarily – the history of the land we live in. i.e., our history which is much deeper, much more experienced and older than the history of Russia proper. For example, this year we are going to mark at least two great dates: the 1,160th anniversary of the foundation of an ancient Kyivan state and the 1,100th anniversary of our first diplomatic agreement – a treaty between Kyivan Rus’ and the Byzantine Empire. It is Kyivan Rus’, the history of our fundamental historical past. But, for some reason, we are saying about this ‘incidentally.’

“Last year we celebrated the 1,000th anniversary of Kyiv St. Sophia Cathedral. Yanukovych came over and made a speech. It is good, but there is no systemic approach. There must be a Ukrainian history rooted in Kyivan Rus’ and even deeper. Why is this important for us? Because they want, frankly speaking, to present us as very young and inexperienced – we are only 20, so we are imperfect and have no true statehood. They are using this against us very seriously. I have seen a Russian history textbook designed for Russia’s senior school and college students, which says bluntly that Ukraine is not a natural political entity (!) and thus has no historical prospects. This means their conceptual approaches carry an idea that there used to be entirely different entities on this territory, which later disintegrated for the well-known historical reasons and it is Moscow, not Kyiv, that is the center of all this. And even if they recognize Kyivan Rus’, they still divide it into three parts: Russia, Ukraine, and Belarus. Again, we are said to be part of something great which is situated outside our land.

“In other words, we still lack a state-centered mentality – I mean the Ukrainian intelligentsia and officials. We are not aware of the importance of the historical past for the people. Let us take an ordinary family. Wherever I have been, say, in Poland, Hungary, or Austria, I met people and saw the way they knew their history, their past. The history of a family, parents, grandparents, and great-grandparents forms the overall history of a state. In our country, people, just for a few exceptions, do not know [their family’s history]. Ask anybody who their grandfather or great-grandfather was. What will they tell you? He worked somewhere or, for example, liked horses – just some fragments. But absolutely nobody knows and, what is more, doesn’t want to know how their surnames were formed, how their ancestors appeared, took root, and grew like a big tree.

“If an individual is not proud of their history, memory, songs, culture, literature, and names, which prop up our history, this means they have no firm persuasions and there is no foundation that can rally the nation together. We are still saying we don’t have a united nation, a united force that could raise the state and the authorities and say: it is we, it is our history – we have been and will be standing here. This force can only be created on the basis of the historical past and, naturally, in conjunction with present-day problems. For this reason, I understand your question very well and I like it that your newspaper raises this kind of questions. I think it is important for the building of our state.

“Now about Shevelov. Each of these enemies or, let us say, directions of our inferiority complex and weakness, needs so much to be said. Although I do not share one hundred percent [what he says], I accept the very approach. For we really lack our own ego, our grandeur, the grandeur of our nation and state – of course, not at the expense of humiliating others. We are still provincial to some extent, and we are still unable to develop a state-oriented mentality. I would also add to this the imperfectness of our elite. We are still imperfect as the Ukrainian elite, as people capable of sacrificing ourselves for the state and its future. We are still to learn to be proud, to defend, and to stand when somebody is forcing us to kneel down.

“We must absorb what is in fact the groundwork. For we are not just living and developing: we are also proud of being Ukrainian – even outside Ukraine. I have met Ukrainians in many countries, including Canada, the US, Germany… They are the people who continue our historical past, are concerned about Ukraine, and study the Ukrainian cause from the viewpoint of European thinking. I accept many other conclusions, including those in articles and literary works. In other words, we should not poormouth so much and speak about our bad past all the time.

“We must look for and be proud of the best things in our life. When we begin to do this, we will begin to be respected. Whenever I listen to leaders, current and past, and MPs, I feel ashamed of myself and these people. They do not understand that when they humiliate themselves, they also humiliate the nation. They are looked upon as inferior people and told: you yourselves are saying bad things about yourselves.

“Why did Medvedev announce the Year of Russian History? They want to raise the level of thinking, historical memory and the past so that the current younger generation absorbs the best in history, even if it is an exaggeration. Take the Greek mythology. I’ve been to Greece more than once. We know that it is just mythology, but how they cherish it! The awareness of being Greek and of Greece being the source [of civilization] fosters in people the feeling of pride for their past, and they even turn myths into history. Sometimes this history becomes so gripping and interesting for every individual that they are proud of what happened a thousand years ago. And we? We put up the Trypillia culture, only to put it down again. We did the same with Kyivan Rus’. Or take the two anniversaries I’ve mentioned before – we first got down to this and took a step, then we stopped, maybe, because we lack knowledge and desire or perhaps there is nobody to take charge of this. I think we all, including the media, should help people reach the peak of historical thinking and become aware of our state being the peak of Ukrainian grandeur in the world. We are developing and we are certain to continue being a state. I am thoroughly confident of this.”