Hennadii Boldyr was born and raised in Luhansk, and up to this day he regularly voyages between Stanytsia Luhanska, Kyiv, and Vienna. Boldyr, director of international department at Ukraine’s Chamber of Commerce and Industry and advisor for the Embassy of Ukraine in Austria, belongs to the category of natives of Donbas who are living proof of the fact that patriotism is not limited to romanticism. Rather, it is a sign of being adequate. Listening to such people is extremely important to those who want to find their way in the problems of Donbas. Firstly, to get rid of harmful stereotypes, and secondly, to probe for a feasible strategy of de-occupation of Ukrainian lands. Unfortunately, even now Kyiv is adopting “de-occupation strategies” regardless of opinions of the inhabitants of Luhansk, Donetsk, and Crimea. This is the root of all evil, because Donbas is people, not just land. And by taking a stance, many of them have shown what a real patriot is.
“SO FAR THERE ARE NO REASONS TO BELIEVE THAT THE CONFLICT IN DONBAS COULD BE SETTLED DIPLOMATICALLY”
Are there non-military methods of solving the conflict in Donbas? The whole problem is that the continuation of the war depends first of all on Putin’s plans.
“Of course, it would be absolutely wonderful if there were a possibility to settle this conflict exclusively by diplomatic methods, including the use of diplomatic and economic leverage to pressurize the Russian Federation. Ukraine values its citizens because it is an absolutely peace-loving country. Unfortunately, we found ourselves in a totally different reality, a far cry from pacifism. Diplomatic methods can prove efficient only under certain circumstances, and that is the problem. The key condition is the understanding by both parties to a conflict of necessity to find a compromise, as well as not being prepared to make sacrifice for ephemeral goals. Sadly, in this case Russia does not show any such impulses. Moreover, the RF has a proclivity to hiding its intentions, which means that it is preparing to a totally different scenario.
“The Kremlin is obviously out to expand aggression, with minimal responsibility at that. This aggression can be manifested not only in artillery salvoes and rockets. When Russian aggression broke out, I was in Austria in connection with my job. I thoroughly studied the commentaries of Western analysts on the stance of Russian politicians and the possibility to negotiate with them, and with Putin in particular. At that moment there was no bloodshed yet, but European observers had already described Putin as a poor negotiator. Of course, this estimation was grounded in concrete prerequisites. Back then it was already conjectured about a ‘hot phase’ in the relations between the West and Russia. This is exactly what happened. That is why at the moment I do not have any reasons to believe that the given conflict could be settled specifically by diplomatic means.
“But even in the case of diplomatic settlement, there raises the question of the price for the settling of the conflict. The thing is that the RF has obviously no intention of withdrawing its troops from our territory, and if someone proposes some mild scenarios, they usually suggest conceding national interests.
“Ukraine’s principled stand is of utter importance here. I am convinced that all negotiations must be based on one imperative: that both Donbas and Crimea are Ukrainian territory. Any compromise could be associated only with, say, liability for certain actions. Probably, we would need to allow some individuals to resort to amnesty. Again, here the limits of the admissible may not be broken. Moreover, any talks about that are out of the question until the issue of Ukraine’s territorial integrity (and consequently, the issue of presence of Ukrainian authorities and army everywhere in Ukraine) is ultimately resolved.
“Ukrainians are very dangerous for those accustomed to the authoritarian state model. Russia is an empire built on the principles of dictatorship. Its supporters think in totally different mental categories. And it has its tentacles in Ukraine as well. Sometimes I have to argue with opponents who assert that extremism began on Maidan. According to them, that was when Molotov cocktails appeared, people burned, and so on, and so forth. I think that it is not Maidan where extremism started. In fact, there had been the extremism of government before that. In two or three years that lawlessness and insolence reached its apogee. Power wielding bodies in that case functioned as executioners, not as law enforcers. But it is also important to realize that this vicious role had appeared long before. Society, indeed, responded to the usurpation of power with its indignation. Another question is, who took advantage of it, and how. In the winter of 2013-14 people could not act in any other way. The protest was the nation’s natural reaction.
“Yet we must learn to build the state, not to destroy it. We cannot fossilize in shallow ideas and blindly trust romantic, albeit seemingly patriotic, slogans. We need to understand that Russia is studying our weaknesses and peculiarities of our thinking. On the other hand, it is studying Russians’ ability to follow the path of Ukrainians. Therefore the Kremlin is taking greatest care to make sure that Russian society sees the developments in Ukraine only in the most negative light.”
“MUSCOVITE AND RUSSIAN HISTORY IS MORE OFTEN THAN NOT A HISTORY OF THEFT”
When the subject of Rus’ is broached, Kyiv is necessarily mentioned as well. Yet we know the position of imperial Muscovite historiography, i.e., the identification of Rus’ and Muscovy.
“Russia has always remodeled history: that was its essence as an empire which is impossible without the history of true Rus’. All Ukrainians must be well aware of this detail, because for many years we have been influenced by imperial historiography. Speaking about vatniks [derogatory nickname for supporters of the Soviet Union and Russia with its ‘traditional’ values. – Ed.], we must never forget about the undercurrent of manipulations with the consciousness of millions of people inhabiting the huge stretches of the USSR. Rus’ is indeed first and foremost associated with Ukraine. It is particularly important to get the message over to the people on the occupied territories, who undergo a powerful brainwashing on a large scale. We know the facts of plain theft of the relics from Rus’ by Moscow, and we know about the contribution of Kyivan intellectuals into the establishment of historiography and other sciences in Muscovy. Muscovite and Russian history is more often than not a history of theft. For instance, the Vyshhorod ikon, once a gift from Constantinople to Kyiv, now decorates the Tretyakov Gallery in Moscow. Over there, it is all hushed up, but you cannot hide objective facts. Why should this theme be important for Ukrainians? We remember Putin’s speech in the spring of 2014, when he pronounced the word ‘Novorossia.’ Back then, Putin even made a mistake in accentuating the word. Why? Because they are very far from understanding the essence. In the eyes of an educated individual Novorossia, with the center in Novorossiysk (which was built in the 19th century), may not claim our lands. This is cheating and ignorance. However, the term instantly went viral in the media. And for a certain layer of people it became tolerable.”
How do you identify yourself as a native of Luhansk?
“Many in Donbas relate not so much to the utopian ‘Novorossia’ as to the Soviet Union. It amazes me how Russian propaganda is using all these terms in our age of information, when a quick Google search can provide answers to the questions. I can say that personally for me, Donbas has always been a Ukrainian region. It is based not on an imposed imperative, but on the understanding of its sources. The Luhansk region in my eyes includes the territories of the three Cossack regions, of Slobozhanshchyna (aka Sloboda Ukraine); parts of Luhansk, including winter camps Kamiany Brid, Verhunka, Cherkasky Brid; and Stanytsia Luhanska. I am an enthusiast of local history. Details matter very much, because they have to do with the history of settlement in the contemporary Luhansk region. I relate to my kin and kith, the Sloboda Cossacks on my father’s side and the villagers from Cherkasky Brid on my mother’s.”
“BY LEAVING ITS CITIZENS TO THEIR OWN DEVICES, STATE VIRTUALLY HANDS OVER THEIR SOULS TO THE OCCUPIERS”
Looking back at the two recent decades, at which point were we – an entire region – appropriated?
“Honestly, I used to think of Russians as of our friends. I had friends, for instance, in the Rostov Oblast, and their behavior never suggested any imperial claims. At some point in time eastern Ukrainians were indeed submerged into the state of utter friendliness. This is a fact. Yet one must understand that preferential treatment of the dwellers of Rostov, Belgorod, or Voronezh was justified, among others, by objective reasons. Family relations, business, infrastructure… Now we see that simultaneously half-legal organizations were active in the Luhansk region, which were getting ready for some particular actions. It is those organizations that played their role in the destabilization of Ukraine.”
Didn’t anyone really have a feeling that an invasion was being prepared?
“I can say that for many years on end the mistrust of western Ukrainians has been actively cherished in Donbas. Before the war I attributed it to the confrontations of political forces. That is what it looked like. Some political leaders appealed to pro-Russian sentiments in Donbas, others, conversely, speculated on radical sentiments in the west of Ukraine. As a result, it became obvious that it was not a matter of inner conflict. On the contrary, the external aggressor used every opportunity to build up alleged tensions, also involving our political leaders into the process.”
How should government treat the inhabitants of Donbas nowadays?
“I will adduce concrete examples, since I have an opportunity to visit the Luhansk region regularly. If we compare the aftermath of hostilities in Luhansk and Stanytsia Luhanska, the latter has suffered a great deal more destruction. Mostly, it was Stanytsia that was bombed by Luhansk, and not vice versa. Meanwhile, people move from the occupied Luhansk to Stanytsia and back, for objective reasons. And it is the people that Ukraine must start working with. But how can one even speak of it if the road between Sievierodonetsk and Stanytsia is full of potholes, yet there is no prospect of reconstruction. Even our roads are in a horrible state. Moreover, no one is going to rebuild the destroyed Stanytsia at all. A roof is shattered, but the dwellers get 25 sheets of roofing slate to cover the hole. This must come into the focus of attention. The approach along the lines of ‘forget it, it will be bombed to shatters anyway’ is absolutely inapplicable here. By resolving citizens’ material problems, state first and foremost resolves the issue of influencing their minds. By leaving its citizens to their own devices, state virtually hands over their souls to the occupiers.”
