In early December, there was an event in Minsk that went past the attention of Ukrainian media. And no wonder, because everything happened in an atmosphere of secrecy. Only extremely stingy messages in Belarusian and Russian publications allowed us to learn about it. The title of the event was very general and had little substance behind it – the “Science and Culture in Contemporary Discourse.” Much more interesting is to learn about the participants – because the conference, according to organizers, was designed to be no more and no less the platform for open dialog of scientific and creative intelligentsia of Ukraine, Russia, and Belarus in a “complex geopolitical situation.” The organizers were the Ministry of Information of Belarus, National Academy of Sciences of Belarus, the Interstate Fund of Humanitarian Cooperation, and the Russian NGO “Institute for Eurasian Studies.”
At the forum, Russia was represented among others by Mikhail Shvydkoy, special representative of the Russian President for international cultural cooperation and former culture minister of Russia; Vladimir Grigoriev, Deputy Head of Federal Agency for Press and Mass Communications; Anatoly Torkunov, Rector of Moscow State Institute of International Relations; Viktor Loshak, deputy director of Kommersant Publishing House; and Alexei Varlamov, rector of Literature Institute. From Belarus, the conference was attended by Liliya Ananich, Information Minister; Viktor Gerashchenko, president of the Academy of Sciences of Belarus; and Viktor Shadursky, Dean of the Faculty of International Relations of Belarusian State University. Of Ukrainian participants, we learned about Borys Oliinyk, poet; Petro Tolochko, director of Institute for Archaeology of National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine (NASU); Mykola Shulha, Deputy Director of the Institute for Sociology of NASU; Dmytro Stus, director of the National Museum of Taras Shevchenko; Anna Veselovska, professor of Art; Pavlo Rudiakov, professor of Slavonic Studies; and Lesia Mudrak, poet and the National Writers Union’s secretary for young authors. “Ukrainian Cultural Foundation” headed by Borys Oliinyk was responsible for the organization of the Ukrainian delegation.
Following the conference, a joint statement was published on the establishment of the trilateral project “Minsk Initiative.” The document refers to “the genetic closeness of the Eastern Slavic nations,” “the independence of cultural sphere from the national framework,” the desire “to give additional impetus to international relations” and so on. The participants agreed that such meetings will be held regularly, with the next conference organized in February. According to Shvydkoy, it was preliminary agreed to prepare a number of joint projects: the creation of tripartite magistrates, publication of literary collections and more.
Russia’s interest in such meetings is not difficult to discern. After all, Russia has largely fulfilled its agenda – Crimea and Donbas are occupied. Obviously, such “reconciliation” between cultural figures can be used to consciously legitimize for Ukrainians the necessity to recognize the occupation of Ukraine. Like, a “complex page” should be turned, and the dialog continued. In addition, these “forums” are also a form of influence on the political leadership of the country in order to encourage it to further concessions. And the favorable cultural background will make it much easier to explain the need for the lifting of sanctions to Europeans. One can also understand the interest of the Belarusian side. For the Ministry of Information of the country it has become an occasion to repeat once again the thesis that Belarus is a “recognized center for negotiations in Eastern Europe.” Only one is not clear – to what purpose Ukrainian cultural figures arrived in Minsk?
“Personally, I went there because in my time I translated Valiantina Kovtun and Mikhas Bashura into Ukrainian,” said Lesia Mudrak in her commentary to The Day. “Before my trip, the Writers Union held the days of Belarusian culture. Accordingly, I had much to tell the Belarusians as an official. I did not know that Russian state officials would be there among others, because I was convinced that the conference of such name would cause interest of the creative and scientific elite. To my surprise, my statement in Ukrainian did not provoke any harsh reaction from the high officials – they admired my language, talked about their Ukrainian roots. Galina Lesnaya, president of the Russian Association of Ukrainian Scholars, who used to study in Lviv, came to me after my speech and started talking about the need for Ukrainian author, Ukrainian book in Moscow. That, they say, Ukrainian Studies are ‘choking’ because writers are afraid to go to Russia…” We will not comment on this point.
A similar position also shared by Dmytro Stus, who said in comments to The Day, that he is “not interested in politics at all.” “What the politicians have done (theirs and ours), should remain between them. The people also have to understand each other,” said Dmytro Stus. “To this conference I was invited by Borys Oliinyk, whom I consider to be one of the most decent persons in Ukraine.” According to Dmytro Stus, for him it was important to raise the issue of the cultural needs of Ukrainians living in Russia. In particular, the Russian side agreed to explore the possibility of opening a Ukrainian Sunday school in Moscow and Novosibirsk – “in case there would be anyone willing to go there.”
One could yet understand the participation of Ukrainian delegation on this event if it raised the discussion on the most pressing issues that concern our society now. However, the illegal detentions of movie director Oleh Sentsov and activist Oleksandr Kolchenko, as well as of Nadia Savchenko and other Ukrainian political prisoners were not discussed at all. Similarly, the participants avoided the subject of searches and harassment of staff at the Library of Ukrainian Literature in Moscow. According to Mudrak, while certain reticence was felt, participants tried not to touch the politics. “Everyone wanted to be as correct as they could,” said she.
Modern German philosopher Vittorio Hoesle in his work “The Moral Reflection and the Collapse of Institutions. On the Dialectic of Enlightenment and Anti-Enlightenment” states that any discussion is based on certain principles that are not negotiable. In our case, this principle is obvious – the recognition and condemnation of Russian aggression against Ukraine. If an interlocutor is not ready for it – or, as it often happens among Russians, is not inclined to recognize the right for statehood for Ukrainians – any further discussion loses every possible sense. After all, many Russian chauvinists boasted the passion for Ukrainian culture in the form of songs and dumplings. At the time, Khrushchev also liked to don a vyshyvanka, but this did not prevent him from being a conscientious executor of Stalin’s policy in Ukraine.
Sadly, the strategy of “coercion to dialog” is supported by some European partners of Ukraine. Actually, Hoesle criticizes Western liberals among others. Consider the recent public debate initiated by several German foundations in Kharkiv, where Serhii Zhadan and other writers from Ukraine and abroad were complemented by “the poet of the LNR” Olena Zaslavska. They demonstrated that representatives of some Western political elites seek peace in Eastern Europe at any cost, including such at the expense of Ukrainian sovereignty. It seems that this is a solution the Ukrainian society should be prepared for by such forums and conferences. Both Russia and Western funds will not spare the money for their organization. But is Ukraine ready to pay the price?
P.S.: It is symptomatic, that the conference in Minsk was held shortly before the anniversary of George Shevelov, linguist and essayist. In his article “Moscow, Maroseika” he used to write: “The three fearsome enemies of Ukrainian renaissance – Moscow, Ukrainian provincialism, and Kochubei-mentality complex – still live today.”
