Recently on the 5th channel Dmytro Tabachnyk pointed out, among other things, that his views were “supported by Odesa professors.” Indeed, radical geopolitical, political science, sociocultural, and other theories are popular among Odesa scholars. Participants of the Ostroh Club know it firsthand. It’s Odesa that they remember as the city of the most irreconcilable opponents. In 2006, when the first meeting of the Ostroh Club actually took place in Odesa, we met a student who flatly stated: “Odesa has always been a Russian city.” One could ignore statements like that, but this student was among the best in the Institute of Social Sciences of Mechnykov Odesa National University. At that time he won international competitions in sociology and planned his future as a successful scholar. He could back up any of his own theories by high-quality knowledge, so someone without proper training in the sphere of social sciences shouldn’t start a discussion with him. Illia (that’s the name of the student) planned to enter a graduate school in Moscow, and he even didn’t consider any other options. Answering the question “Why?” in 2006 Illia said that the Moscow School of Sociology was the most influential and developed one. To our argument that it was much more interesting and promising to go to Kyiv and develop the Ukrainian sociological school he was just skeptically smiling.
The profound knowledge of our Ukrainian scholars, which, however, doesn’t serve the interests of this country, is the biggest danger for Ukraine. On the other hand, there is nothing strange in this. The country which for almost two decades didn’t manage to elaborate a conception of patriotic education can hardly expect from professionals to be ready to work devotedly for its development. Moreover, there are no conditions for that. And Odesa in this context is just an example of the general national tendency: in the east – in Kharkiv, Luhansk, and Donetsk — most scholars are inclined to Eurasian views and mostly regard Ukraine in this context; in the west they are fond of Polish and European studies (study European institutions and European legislation). However, again, this is hardly of any practical use for Ukraine, since they rarely go beyond developing theoretical recommendations regarding the implementation of European research practices.
Therefore, a research school which could unite the most powerful intellectual forces of the country around one goal – developing the general national conception of development — is not yet created in Ukraine, unfortunately. For so far there is no single research front which could unanimously resist Tabachnyk, Zatulin, Dugin, or the Pole Moczulsky (with his concept of Miedzymorze [Intermarum] from the Baltic to the Black Sea). Uncoordinated voices of even powerful Ukrainian scholars are lost in the hubbub and general indefiniteness. One could abandon it in disappointment, but, strange as it may seem, precisely Odesa convinced us that the Ukrainian geopolitical science, and hence geostrategy, has a future.
Three years have passed since our last communication with Illia. The Ostroh Club came to Odesa again. Having traveled through half of Ukraine in three years and personally observing quite different, change-ready youth growing up, we expected that in this time period Odesa changed its views, too. Moreover, there were reasons for this. In November 2009, during the meeting in Chernivtsi a fourth-year student from Odesa University, Ivan Stoianov, joined us. It was he who together with the teachers of the Department of History and World Politics, Mechnykov Odesa National University, undertook the implementation of the idea to hold a big conference in Odesa on the subject “Ukraine in the 21st Century: Alternatives and Strategies of Development” with the participation of the Ostroh Club.
After traditional problems with accommodation (for three years the Ostroh Club became convinced that in many universities of the country, the student infrastructure remains typically Soviet, with the complete self-will of dormitory janitors and supervisors, the absence of hot water and the presence of cockroaches; but this is a topic for another conversation) we finally made it to the conference site, being ready for discussions and full of arguments we gathered in three years. After the first speech it became evident that our preparation was not in vain.
Veronika Chehiriova, a graduate student at ONU, called attention of the conference participants to her presentation “Mythology of Foreign Policy Strategy of Ukraine during the Time of Viktor Yushchenko.” Now we wouldn’t like to speak at length about the essence of this research. We’ll only pay attention to one point Veronika made: “In order to form a foreign policy conception, we should take into account the fact that we are different. Ukraine doesn’t completely belong to only one civilization.”
The Ostroh Club, which has been working for already four years and unites 15 regions of the country, merely by the fact of its existence refutes all artificial constructions on dividing Ukrainians or their belonging to different civilizations. From the very beginning we set the goal of overcoming this stereotype and convinced, at least those who observe the activity of the Ostroh Club, in the necessity of internal integration of the Ukrainian political nation, which has different ethnic and religious constituents but a shared set of values. As we found out, Veronika visits the USA and Russia quite often. It’s important to see and learn the world. However, it’s interesting whether she often visited Chernivtsi, Ostroh, Dnipropetrovsk, or Kharkiv in order to empirically support her theory?
However, to our surprise, we just didn’t have time to express all these arguments to Veronika. Odesa students criticized the speech of their peer in a professional, calm, and consolidated manner. We understood with relief: Odesa has changed. The new generation of students treats information differently, in a more critical and pragmatic way. They are not ready to accept far-fetched conceptions, but are open to a constructive dialogue. Therefore, no wonder that during the next six hours of actually uninterrupted intellectual discussions everyone discovered something new and interesting.
“The basis for our positioning on the international arena is a self-representation of the country in the geopolitical space, vision of our own place in the system of international relations. It will be more productive to somewhat weaken the forced pace of Ukraine’s integration in the European community. This will allow drawing more resources to the formation of democratic institutions, norms and practices of behavior, which can expedite democratization in Ukraine. In its turn, the effort to ask foreign players for help in the lowest extent possible will allow showing us in some time in a quite different light. We should position ourselves not as a country trying to catch up with European standards, but as an independent and rather strong nation at least capable of not subduing itself to the disadvantageous correlation with other geopolitical players,” believes the ONU student Anastasia Matviienko. Her views were supported by the majority of the conference participants. Indeed, shall we follow the example of our northern neighbors who spend so many efforts on their activity in foreign policy, at the same time often ignoring home problems?
It should be mentioned that if three years ago we spent most of the time in Odesa for a discussion around the issue of the need of the European integration, this time it wasn’t raised at all. The majority of Odesa students are confident in the necessity of the European integration processes and introduction of European standards. But at the same time Odesa residents are pragmatic. They are willing to know to what Europe Ukraine is going. What awaits us there? Who is our “friend” in Europe, and who should we beware of?
From this point the presentation of Dmytro Byliev, a representative of the Center for the Black Sea Region Studies, (we’ll give a fragment from it below) with the emotional title “Is It a New Face of Europe?!” turned out to be interesting and revealing. Relations of Ukraine and Romania in recent years have become a vivid example of unsuccessful Ukrainian foreign policy. The internal weakness of the country allowed our neighbors to evade national interests of Ukraine. Meanwhile, the EU not only “failed to notice” such an impudent act, but actually played into the hands of Romania. At the same time, on the part of Ukraine there is only silence (not only diplomatic, but informational as well).
The presentation of ONU student Oleksandr Cheban about elaborations of Polish political scientists regarding Ukrainian-Polish confederation provoked a big discussion about the possibility of such a formation in principle. Though today sufficiently warm relations have been established between the two countries, some recent events (the decision of the Polish Sejm regarding the commemoration of the 66th anniversary of the Volhynian tragedy and the Polish initiative regarding the inclusion of a point on granting Bandera the title of Hero of Ukraine in the resolution of the European Parliament on Ukraine) showed that there are, in fact, many unsolved issues between Ukrainians and Poles. Without solving them any common state formations or even co-existence in the EU is hardly possible.
Sure, it’s impossible to encompass all the polemics held during the six hours. Based on the materials of the conference a VAK (Higher Attestation Commission) collection of articles will be published which, hopefully, won’t be another formality but will become a handbook for the authorities. Students and young researchers are ready to develop state conceptions. The Odesa school of social sciences, no doubt, is presently one of the most prominent – modern and pragmatic — ones; it doesn’t suffer from idealism either regarding the Eurasian direction or the EU. But still only Dmytro Tabachnyk is ready to use its potential to find support for his own views. The answer to the question “What should be done in order to make Ukrainian scholars work for their own state?” is simple: be interested in the work of our own scholars.
Mykola SHEVCHUK, candidate of historical sciences, assistant professor, head of the Department of History and World Politics, Mechnykov Odesa National University:
“Students really liked it. They showed interest in the problems connected with the development of Ukraine. It’s very important that we went beyond the framework of our university and involved students from Ostroh Academy. A connection between our institutions was established a few years ago when our students visited Ostroh and then Ostroh students came to us. Of course, it’s important that Kyiv wasn’t left behind either, and the participation in the conference of Ivan Kapsamun, our graduate and now already a journalist with The Day, is especially pleasant.
“During the conference students demonstrated not only their ability to analyze problems and answer questions, but also offer their own ideas. Here I’d like to note our graduate student Veronika Chyhyriova. Students were disturbed by the further development of our country. In view of the fact that there are many problems, the young generation will have to resolve them, too. The participants of the conference will become a part of adult life soon. Hopefully, all of them will show themselves as good specialists and will be able to find their place in life.
“The tasks the current government should solve are very complicated. It’s a serious challenge requiring a worthy answer. The European vector should remain the main vector of foreign policy. At the same time, acting pragmatically, we should improve relations with Russia. It’s necessary to find beneficial, not harmful, solutions.
“I recall the famous phrase by Palmerston: ‘Great Britain doesn’t have permanent friends; it has permanent interests.’ This is the principle our current government should be guided by in the international arena. We should create positive image, acting so that we don’t acquire foes, but obtain partners cooperation with which could bring success to Ukraine.”
Ivan STOIANOV, fourth-year student, Political Science Department, Mechnykov Odesa National University:
“Our politicians often split Ukraine by their statements, speculating on the topics of language, history, and religion, regretfully. As practice shows, fomentation of conflicts on religious or language grounds leads only to hatred and bloodshed, and, as a result, to the weakening and collapse of the state.The society is a kind of balance for the authorities. That’s what the conference in Odesa with the participation of the Ostroh Club showed. Students understand the problems of contemporary society very well. To some extent they, even not realizing it, find correct ideas. Of course, there are some who live by political myths, but, obviously, there are enough of such people everywhere. At the conference, students offered their own ways for the nation’s reconciliation.”
Kyrylo KOSAKOVSKY, fourth-year student, Political Science Department, Mechnykov Odesa National University:
“The research conference that was held in Odesa University with the participation of the Ostroh Club became a really vivid and extraordinary event. Research activities where students of a few higher educational establishments were the main focus are an event which, as they say, happens once a year, and all the more so if this event is well-organized and accurately conducted, according to the plan. All in all, the research conference with the participation of the Ostroh Club left a vivid imprint on the life of students and became an example of the fact that research life among students was, is, and will continue taking place!”
Dmytro BYLIEV, Center for the Black Sea Region Studies, (a fragment of the presentation):
“It would be expedient for the ruling elite of Romania to revise, especially after the election of a new president on October 22 this year, its policy regarding the Danube channels and regarding Ukraine. The extent of growth of commodity and cargo exchange along the route the Black Sea – Danube makes it possible to increase the number of transit service providers. Perhaps, it’s necessary to revise the outdated approaches and methods dictated by national egotism.
“In our time it’s necessary to look ahead and think more globally. Presently it’s necessary to use the logic of figures, profit, and mutual interest. In this context it is envisioned that Ukrainian Deep water fairway (DWF) due to its characteristics should take a place it deserves, for economic and physical laws work without changes, not taking into account subjective factors. Besides, increasing the transport potential of Danube’s mouth will only boost the efficient functioning of the transport track the North Sea – Rhine – Danube – the Black Sea.
“Therefore establishing a dialogue between Romania and Ukraine and the resetting bilateral relations could serve the interests of not only the two states but those of the EU generally. This would also stimulate solving one of the key controversies in the system of the Black Sea region. Therefore, perhaps, for the EU it would be a good idea to conduct an analysis on compliance of Romania’s policy to European and, in general, international standards of behavior on the international arena, and at the same time recognize Ukraine as a country which corresponds to the current norms and standards of the international community. The decision of the UN Implementation Committee on the Environmental Impact Assessment in a Transboundary Context within the framework of the Espoo convention of September 17 this year on accepting for consideration the appeal of Ukraine concerning the illegitimate activity of Romania in the Danube’s mouth can be a positive sign denoting the fact that the EU understands the importance of the mentioned topic. Of course, the EU’s keeping to the principles of impartiality will create conditions for objective investigation of the abovementioned appeal of Ukraine and preparing an objective response, which should be made public in the spring of 2010, will show the objectivity of the EU in solving controversial issues.
“It should also be mentioned that the resolution of the Espoo convention implementation committee will be decisive in whether the EU will remain an attractive integration bloc or the actions of Romania will leave their negative trace on the international reputation of the EU as a union of countries sharing the new political worldview. Exactly the new political worldview is the cementing foundation of the system inside the EU, which helps transforming heterogeneity of the ‘nations of the European home’ into the monolith of the ‘European home of nations.’ On the whole, Ukraine should make a detailed analysis of its European integration experience from the viewpoint of political realism, not idealism, and make a preliminary summary which would help find out further steps for the European integration. Regarding ordinary citizens, their views on the EU are formed, above all, through the prism of policy of Ukraine’s neighbors – the EU members, and Romania in particular. In the given context, a logical question appears: ‘It is the right Europe we’re going to, brother?!’”
Hanna HOLUBOVSKA, sophomore, Institute of Social Sciences, Mechnykov Odesa National University:
“The main challenge for Ukraine is not outside, but inside; it is of an internal character and lies in the inconsistency of its current state with criteria accepted in the democratic world. The current ruling elite didn’t react to this challenge, although it had enough time and more than enough authority.
“The extremely important factor influencing the content and directions of external policy is Russia. Developing balanced and really partner relations with it, with an efficient counteraction to any encroachment on our independence at the same time, is a task of a special importance for Ukraine. Not only Ukraine particularly, but the whole region where it is situated are a sphere of strategic interests of Russia. Transit ways (gas and oil pipelines, highways, and railways) that are important for Russia and connect it with Central and Western Europe pass through the territory of Ukraine. Through the territory of Ukraine Russia gets the nearest exit to the Balkans, the Mediterranean, and Transnistria – the regions where it tries to keep its presence.
“The relations between Ukraine and Russia were built not in an easy way, and they are rather difficult. And it concerns not only the relations between Ukraine and Russia but also other new independent states. A considerable part of representatives of the Moscow political elite still can’t get rid of their great-power thinking and demonstrate unreadiness to accept new independent states, including Ukraine, as equal partners. Therefore from time to time the readiness to interfere with the internal affairs of other post-Soviet republics is proclaimed, protect by force their so-called ‘Russian-speaking population,’ i.e., increase their international weight by means of power pressure on neighbors. It often leads to the opposite effect, but stirs up supporters of power methods in Russian foreign policy.
“Despite all these problems Ukraine managed to achieve noticeable progress in relations with Russia in the past year. The political and economic dialogue with it is unblocked and raised to a normal business level. Important agreements on a number of important problems were settled, including the restructuring of Ukraine’s state debt to Russia. Thus, it should be admitted that for Ukraine it would be very unreasonable to stake only on Europe. The optimal option for Ukraine would be mutually beneficial contracts with both the West and Russia, and not the alternative: the West vs. the East.
“However, Ukraine is Ukraine, and politics in it shouldn’t be pro-Russian or pro-European — it should be pro-Ukrainian. I suppose, the optimal solution of this problem is to put the conjunction ‘and’ between the phrases ‘Slavic society’ and ‘European choice,’ thus Ukraine will be able to assimilate and combine the experience of Europe and Russia and create new Ukraine which won’t need assistance from external powers, but on the contrary, it will foster the development of other countries of the world.”
Svitlana KOCH, candidate of historical sciences, assistant professor, Mechnykov Odesa National University:
“A conference held in the Institute of Social Sciences is almost an ordinary event. Researchers and politicians together constantly try to find answers to the questions current life raises before the society. But this conference did become significant, and its main result is a new format of the dialogue in which students, young scholars, teachers, and practical political scientists took place.
“The initiative group focused the discussion on the basic issues of Ukraine’s strategic development: the social-cultural foundation of geostrategy, the policy of national memory formation, and the problems of social transformations. The level of participants’ preparation was a pleasant surprise; they demonstrated their ability and readiness to analyze complicated academic questions, not slipping into politicking and demagogy. It was pleasant to understand that speakers were ready not only to express their thoughts but also defend them. The publication of the most thought-provoking presentations should be an important stage of the conference. This will enable continuing the discussion already on the pages of a collection of papers which is prepared today under the guidance of Yulia Uzun, candidate of political sciences at the Chair History and World Politics. The conference is over, but the wish to continue communication in other formats was expressed by all participants, so we’ll look forward to new meetings and discussions.”
Yulia UZUN, candidate of political sciences, assistant professor, Mechnykov Odesa National University:
“The conference we held became an extracurricular activity – an initiative of the Institute of Social Sciences students. The conference’s title ‘Ukraine in the 21st Century: Alternatives and Strategies of Development’ enabled us to cover most of the number of problems that are a concern for people who connect their personal life with Ukraine. We tried to prevent the conference from becoming one of formal meetings, fearing possible pointless demagogy which has been very popular in Ukraine in the past five years. And we were really glad when almost all conference presentations turned out to be substantial: topical, full of new statistic data analysis and grounded research positions of Ukrainian and foreign scholars. It’s pleasant that the research level of presentations was peculiar to not only graduate students and young scholars, but also freshmen who spoke for the first time.
“It should be mentioned that almost each presentation provoked questions. This, as we know, always define the topicality of the subject matter. … Some questions showed tough opposition which everyone could feel. So, first, for some speakers there was a real test of their research achievements and ability to support their position, while for others a correction of former ideas, and the third ones accentuated the need for the search of new scholarly proofs of their correctness.
“In general, it was a real opportunity to get acquainted with each other: listen to others, learn to accept other positions, try to understand them, and accept them as such that have the right to exist. This is always difficult for all participants and most useful for the results of their participation, though it is considered to be an expression of common human culture. Some speakers exposed the criminal situation in the politics of memory of recent years for the general citizens’ identification and a catastrophic situation in Ukraine’s internal policy in its demographic, migration, socio-economic, and administrative aspects.”
Serhii MELNYK, sophomore, Ostroh Academy:
“The most ‘unimpressive’ thing was the Russian language of the conference, and Ukrainian was heard only accidentally, though all participants understood it very well. The irrationality of the approach to the problem and the visible subjectivity of speakers mean lack of professionalism.
“The positive aspect is that today’s youth understands: we need national unity, and we have everything for our own Great state. Youth aspires for the development of its own state.”
Oleksandr CHEBAN, student, International Relations Department, Mechnykov Odesa National University:
“I had a pleasant impression that there participants were not arrogant pseudo-political scientists trying to surpass even politicians with their twaddle. Listening to meaningful presentations, I grew in my confidence that home political science has a great and bright future. Listening to the meeting of the foreign policy section, I got rid of some mythical ideas about foreign policy prospects of Ukraine inspired by the works of some foreign political scientists. For example, participants of the conference managed to convincingly prove that the original and seemingly very attractive idea of Polish political scientists about the necessity of establishing a Polish-Ukrainian confederation in the near future is actually destructive for the national interests of Ukraine and mostly corresponds to the interests of still economically and ideologically stronger Poland. Participants of the conference finally reached this conclusion: a multilateral policy should become the most realistic and correct foreign policy course for Ukraine at the current stage for the following reasons:
- today Ukraine doesn’t have real chances to join NATO and the EU, and joining the Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO) will threat to limit our sovereignty;
- choosing any single foreign policy course will inevitably split heterogeneous multinational Ukraine. Only multilateral foreign policy can save Ukraine’s unity.
Participants of the conference came to the conclusion that Ukraine should reach a high level of economical and democratic society development by itself, not waiting for any help. Ukraine has a great potential for that, and its realization depends only on Ukrainians.
Finally, I’d like to thank the organizers of the conference who, having limited resources, did manage to hold a wonderful scholarly forum of an inter-regional importance. I’d like to express special thanks to the guests of the conference, the participants of the Ostroh Club and The Day journalists, who, represented by a small number of experienced experts, ensured a high scholarly level of the event. The journalists of The Day proved the high level of their professionalism and refuted the pessimistic statement that the quality of all Ukrainian mass media is deteriorating quickly because of the absence of prepared young professionals.”
