UKL444 - Chair of Ukrainian Studies

again went in the direction of the East. Slipping by inertnia in 2006, 200y, and in
2010 it forced the Dnipro and once again flipped from head to toes the main
priorities of Ukrainian national identity.
Just yesterday our leaders were writing letters to NATO. Today they sign agreements
with Russia. Yesterday, we made dubbing movies into Ukrainian a must, today we
cancel this norm. Yesterday, we positioned the Holodomor with the status of a
national archetype, and today we call into question the very fact of its existence.
Walking on an electric razor between the East and the West not only brings
frustration in Ukraine’s image from within a network of friends, but also enemies.
The main problem lies in a politician’s hidden desire to sit on two chairs, which leads
only to one thing: sooner or later the seat gets tired of such permanent starch and
tears apart, and the time, which the country so much needs to implement reforms,
hopelessly flies away.
Within almost 19 year long yarn between East and West, Ukraine hopelessly
laggedbehind its neighbors. While we were busy identifying who is the master of the
household, Poland joined the EU and overwhelmed Europe with its agriculture
products, Belarus built a government machine not afraid of economic crises, and
Russia resumed his forgotten game of being a superpower.
One should not hide its head in the sand. The victory of the West or the East
inevitably leads to the euphoria of one principle and the neglect of the other. This is
a strategy of mutual destruction. We should just take it as it is: in Ternopil or Ivano-
Frankivsk there will never be monuments erected to Stalin. In Luhansk or Simferopil
they will never consider Bandera a hero. This is just the way it is, for historical
reasons.
If you look at the voting maps of last few elections, the conclusion is that there
exists a unbearable mental abyss between East and West. This is obvious. Then,
could it be that the “spiritual unity” (sobornost’), celebrated in history textbooks, is
not, essentially, understood by anyone?
In the end, this is our chance to get out of the vicious circle, when one part of
population celebrates a victory at the expense of the other. In the United States,
similar differences were solved by the Civil War. In Russia as well, but half-a-century
later. But we are civilized, aren’t we? If there is no sense in living in an odious
marriage, then divorce remains maybe the least favorable, and yet the only possible,
option. And then everything become clear. Some will put as many Shukhevych
monuments as they wish. The others will reinstate historical justice to Stalin. Some
will be waiving EU flags on holidays, others – the Russian three-color.
There is no such idea which can unite. The mantra about a total increase of the
standard of living, which would let us forget about our mental conflicts, only applies
during the “between two stools” electoral rhetoric. The hosting of Euro 2012 is too
abstract, even for someone who cares about soccer. We are not planning on going to
war, and even if we do so in the future, it is not clear if Eastern and Western Ukraine
will be allies. Maybe that is why the numerous intellectuals running around a
“national idea” are not getting any success? With that same effect we can try and
divide by zero: even though we want so much, we cannot.
Those who think you can break a political opponent with your knee are mistaken. In