One can sometimes hear, even from young people, a commonplace remark that Ukrainians were given independence like manna from heaven, i.e., for free. They made no serious efforts, you see, to obtain independence and, by all accounts, had no more or less noticeable desire or intention to make them: they were suddenly swept over by the wave of precipitous circumstances (collapse of the USSR) and thrown onto the shaky (and, hence, not-so-lovable) ground of self-rule. By the same token (continue the bearers of this logic, replaying a dubious well-worn record), it is not Ukrainians who should be praised for achieving territorial unity – we must cordially thank Moscow for military and political assistance (Western Ukraine) as well as for an incredibly generous gift (the Crimea).
At first glance, there is no use paying serious attention to this kind of nonsense (after all, we always hear loads of nonsense) because it is only too obvious that, despite the decisive impact of the external factor, the latter would not have sufficed: Ukraine would have never emerged if Ukrainians themselves had not laid down the domestic groundwork (let us recall V. Lypynsky: “…the instinct and reason that God bestowed on us say that only in a struggle for its independent political existence will our Ukrainian Land be able to display its figure and be praised by the One Who creates all the existing things – they exist because they are strong and they are strong because they are moral and wise”).
The proof is in fact easy to see: even from the juridical viewpoint (not to mention a fierce armed struggle and the movement of dissidents), had the UNR, a Ukrainian nation-state, not existed, there may have been no Ukrainian SSR as a counterbalance to it (instead, there would have been, e.g., several Donetsk-Kryvyi-Rih-type Soviet republics), and the annexation of Western Ukraine would have looked totally illegitimate without the ZUNR (Western Ukrainian National Republic) and the Act of Union.
So this kind of reasoning (and the feelings based on this) would really not be worthy of serious attention if it were not for one “but:” the resulting attitude to Ukrainian statehood, independence and unity can be described in such terms as “indifference” and “negligence” and “negligence” rather than “responsibility” – after all, even from a purely psychological angle, one cannot cherish and value what one has acquired for free; on the contrary, one can easily ignore and part with it (tellingly, Russia is doing its utmost to keep up the memory of the Great Patriotic War by recalling the prohibitive price it had to pay for its existence). In other words, any responsible attitude to Ukraine seems to be impossible today unless one becomes aware of and, moreover, emotionally concerned about their involvement in the tradition of struggling for this country’s independence.
The holiday of union, or Ukraine Unity (Sobornist) Day, which is one of the greatest symbols of this tradition, is especially significant in this case, for it broaches the painful problem of internal cohesion (unity as such) in this country and raises a question that is embarrassing to some people: to what extent are young people aware (unaware) of their responsibility for the unity their fathers have won and what have those in power (politicians, intellectuals, the press, etc.) have done to deepen this feeling of responsibility?
In all probability, there are almost no problems with territorial unity (although non-demarcated borders still remain an unresolved issue), but the idea of sobornist is by no means confined to this: although some researchers see no difference between the terms “sobornist” and “national unity,” the majority incline to opt for a broader (and, undoubtedly, more important today) interpretation that presupposes not only ethno-territorial but also cultural and spiritual unity as well as national identity. It should be noted, unfortunately, that, in cultural terms, Ukraine has not yet achieved a unity whereby its component parts – self-sufficient and original entities – would constitute an integrated and, what is more, aware of its integrity, body (which is partially the result of political games and deliberate emphasis on largely imaginary differences). Yet the aforesaid in no way means that this kind of unity is impossible in principle: even if there is a conflict between Western and Eastern Ukraine today, it seems to be of a dialectic nature and is supposed to lead to some synthesis. The west and east of Ukraine, in spite of all their differences, dialectically presuppose each other, as body presupposes spirit (of which Serhii Kopyl wrote extremely movingly in the article “Ukraine between… An Attempt to Observe” in the journal Dytyna, No 4, 2004). Therefore, it is about seeking a balance and harmony between them: the unity of Ukraine consists in its diversity, while this diversity is only possible if this country is united. The acceptance of this point is bound to make one feel responsible for the future of Ukraine.
On the eve of Ukraine Unity Day, we asked the following question of young people from different regions of Ukraine: are you prepared to assume responsibility for the nation’s spiritual unity?
Ivan STOIANOV, fouth-year student, Odesa Illia Mechnykov National University:
“Ukraine is a young state that was established a little fewer than twenty years ago. And the creation of the Ukrainian state is a result of the will and unity of the entire Ukrainian nation which thus displayed what is known as sobornist in their aspiration to live in a united state, being aware of assuming responsibility for themselves and generations to come. But the Ukraine we received has set us the tasks that we must fulfill – we will have no future unless we do so. One of the most important problems is Ukraine’s multifaceted unity. How can we unite the east and the west, see who our national heroes are and what the Ukrainian people has fought for? They have fought for the same Ukraine!
“As representative of a generation that has grown in independent Ukraine, I must say: it is an independent state capable of responding to the challenges of today that should be the idea of our sobornist.
“As a way out of this societal dispute, I can suggest that eastern and western students, political and cultural elites, freely communicate in an attempt to understand each other and reach a consensus instead of dividing on “friend or foe” lines. It is high time we understood what we are – the nation of one state or just of the part with which we identify ourselves. Therefore, sobornist is not just a day in the year but a goal for us all.”
Denys PODYACHEV, member of the Ostroh Youth Club of Free Intellectual Communication, Kharkiv:
“It has been said and written so much that many problems of Ukraine’s internal and external development can be put down to the fact that a critically small number of people, who, incidentally, are geographically concentrated in the Western region, show respect for the national heritage. Although there have been certain positive shifts in the formation of common national identity, including the coincidence of value-related models of awareness among western and eastern young people, we must admit that this is too slow a process.
“The emergence of a generation of adults born in independent Ukraine raises another question: the bearers of the original idea of Ukraine as a nation in not only economic and political but also spiritual terms are gradually sinking into oblivion. Are changes in awareness going to continue as an objective, not subjective, process?
“In my view, this process will continue. Just look: it is usually old-age people who toy with stereotyped ideas, including that of residents of the opposite regions. Young people are more mobile and aspire to learn everything and look into the nature of a view they do not share. Thanks to this, overtly destructive, in terms of national development, messages have gradually begun to disappear from cynical political slogans in the pat few years. In any case, I am strongly convinced that, while cash-hungry political spin masters have already begun to understand that even in this country there are things they’d better not touch upon and, hence, they stopped ‘dividing us into three grades’ in mudslinging election-campaign posters, there will also emerge certainty of a radiant future. But the main problem is, in my opinion, not access to, so to speak, genetic information about Ukraine’s spiritual legacy but the interest of those for whom previous generations tried to preserve this information. When one day the faces of 46 million people show no contemptuous grin at last when they hear the word ‘nation’ on television, we will forget the problem of disrespect for our roots.
“I only wish there would be at least 46 million people in this country.”
Kyryl KOMISSAR, third-year student, Sevastopol Municipal University of Liberal Arts:
“This has always been an especially painful and incredibly difficult problem for the Ukrainian nation that was deprived of its own statehood and torn apart by the neighboring countries for centuries. The idea of unity has been one of the most cherished dreams of Ukrainians for many centuries. This idea was the core subject in the works of outstanding thinkers and political figures. Unfortunately, in our not so easy times far from all Ukrainians feel they are responsible for the unity, both territorial and spiritual, of this country. But does our generation feel this responsibility? I think so. We are aware of how difficult it was for our predecessors to achieve this, how hard it was to unite all the parts of our state. And now we should not only stir up these memories but also do our best for the unity of our nation. Friendly relations among people (which I think is in fact spiritual sobornist) who live in the north, east and west, in Lviv and Sevastopol, in Donetsk and Chernihiv, in Simferopol and Kyiv, should develop and acquire a new content.”
Maryna PASHKOVSKA, part-time student, Lviv Regional Institute of Public Administration of the National Academy of Public Administration (under the President of Ukraine’s patronage); member, Ostroh Youth Club of Free Intellectual Communication:
“Then, on January 22, 1919, the Ukrainians, separated by the borders of foreign states, did on Kyiv’s St. Sophia Square what we, present-day Ukrainians, do not fully appreciate, much to our regret. But in that day’s historical conditions, political figures and the public were aware that it was very difficult to fully unite the state. Therefore, Unity Day is, above all, the show of a common aspiration for spiritual unification; it indicates that Ukrainians are a nation. But is it so difficult for us, contemporaries, to find our own way to Unity?
“All we are doing is excusing ourselves. We find explanations in all kinds of geographic doctrines, for example, that Ukraine is located on the fault line of the Western and Eastern civilizations, or we put the blame on the fact that the divided Ukrainian territory was part of states with different cultural, value-related and political attitudes, or we castigate politicians for their failure to stop dividing Ukraine… The list can be continued. But the solution is perhaps much simpler, and one need not write any national doctrine of development and turn out documents on the national idea. In all probability, each of us must think for a while and understand that the formula of spiritual sobornist consists in our own responsibility for the past and the future. This responsibility means a ‘daily plebiscite’ and the ability to say to, first of all, oneself: ‘I am proud of being Ukrainian. I want my children to live in Ukraine’.”
