The ceremonial reception held at the residency of Geoffrey Pyatt, Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of the USA to Ukraine, in connection with the international conference “Ukraine: Thinking Together” in Kyiv, resembled other protocol events of this level and, at the same time, essentially differed from them. As usual, the distinguished guests, among them politicians, public figures, journalists, writers, entrepreneurs, scientists, and representatives of Ukraine’s main religious denominations (let me name just a few high-profile figures: Patriarch Filaret of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church, Kyiv Patriarchate; human rights activist Yevhen Zakharov; political journalist Mykola Riabchuk; Yale University Professor Timothy Snyder; Professor Hryhorii Hrabovych) informally chatted, standing with a glass of champagne in hand next to an ancient-style fireplace, the piano, or some refined pictures, joked, smiled amiably, and exchanged opinions. They listened attentively to Ambassador Pyatt who spoke very briefly about the uniqueness of the February 2014 Ukrainian Revolution of Dignity and its powerful impact on the future of Ukraine, Europe, and, to a large extent, the rest of the world, about a dire necessity to reconsider and address a colossal circle of the emerging problems. At first sight, it was another informal and not so important meeting.
But, after hearing the invited intellectuals, you could see that it was not exactly so. For the conference “Ukraine: Thinking Together,” attended by well-known academics, politicians, and journalists from the US, France, Poland, Germany, Russia, Lithuania, and many other countries, was convened at a crucial moment of Ukrainian history, when, as many guests pointed out, the entire system of post-Yalta European security is in danger, when what seemed to be highly reliable guarantees of the great powers turned out in reality to be just zero-value declarations, when a part of our territory was occupied in an extremely Jesuitical and brazen manner by the world’s second strongest nuclear state, and no sanctions can essentially change the situation. What state will be the next likely victim of the Kremlin’s aggression? And, what is more, how can Europe and the rest of the world really and concretely help Ukraine (provided we cease to be infantile and credulous and begin to defend ourselves in earnest)?
Naturally, all these questions are by no means an abstract “mind game” because the destiny (perhaps the survival and salvation) of hundreds of thousands of people depends on the right answers to them. These fateful issues in no way apply to Ukraine alone. Hence are the seriousness, alarm, and concern (in spite of polite smiles) of many guests at Mr. Pyatt’s reception. But the organizers of this international conference seem to have already found a fundamental answer. It lies in the very name of this event – “Ukraine: Thinking Together,” – in the aspiration to jointly analyze and understand the tough, very concrete, and qualitatively new challenges of time. This does not rule out, of course, Ukraine’s need in material aid.
The conference organizers – virtually dozens of distinguished figures and international institutions, including Professor Timothy Snyder (Yale University, USA), Leon Wieseltier (The New Republic, USA), the European Endowment for Democracy, the Goethe Institute in Kyiv, the embassies of the US, Canada, Germany, France, and Poland in Kyiv, the Open Society foundation, the Foreign Ministry of Ukraine, the Ministry of Culture of Ukraine, the National University of Kyiv Mohyla Academy, the International Renaissance Foundation (you can’t possibly enumerate all!) – issued a manifesto well before the beginning of the event, which emphasized in particular: “This is an encounter between those who care about freedom and a country where freedom is dearly won. This year Ukraine has seen protests, revolution, and a counterrevolution from abroad. When millions of people gathered to press for the rule of law and closer ties to Europe, the Yanukovych regime answered with violence. Vladimir Putin offered the Ukrainian government money to clear the streets and join Russia in a Eurasian project. Yanukovych criminalized civil society, which only broadened the protests. Then the police began to kill the protestors in large numbers. This brought revolution, a shift of political power to parliament, and the promise of free elections. Russian authorities reacted by invading Crimea, sending provocateurs into eastern Ukraine, threatening to dismember the country, and suppressing Russian civil society. Ukraine today, like Czechoslovakia in 1938, is a pluralist society amidst authoritarian regimes, a fascinating and troubled country poorly understood by its neighbors. It is also home to an extraordinary tradition of civil society, and to gifted writers, thinkers, and artists, many of whom, reflecting on the Maidan, have raised in new ways fundamental questions about political representation and the role of ideas in politics.” The West, including the neighboring countries, know too little about this, so our guests decided to come here and see what is special about Ukraine and understand how this can help them be better aware of their own problems with history, philosophy, and art.
The organizers focused on the following questions to be discussed: “How can human rights be grounded and how are we motivated by the idea of human rights? How and when does language provide access to the universal, and how and when does it define political difference? Are some experiences so intense that they alter the character of intellectual exchange as such? How is decency in politics possible amidst international anarchy, domestic corruption, and the general fallibility of individuals? Does revolution renew Europe and revive political thought or can revolution, like everything else, be consumed by the cliches and abstractions of globalization? What does the revival of geopolitics mean for the world order? Is the Maidan an eruption of youth or an expression of history? Does its memory bring Ukrainians closer to European preoccupations, or introduce constellations that confound myths?” It is these subjects that the forum’s seven panels discussed.
As we can see, these are the fundamental problems of today and the future and they were, naturally, discussed at the meeting with the US ambassador. Quite probably, there was a debate on the following statements of the well-known French philosopher Bernard Henri Levy: 1. Putinism is new-type fascism, as cynical, savage, and absolutely unscrupulous (especially in the methods of propaganda) as was the 20th-century fascism. It is gangsterism. 2. European sanctions against the Kremlin do not work because they are light-minded, insufficient, and overtly weak. Still, let us believe that Putin will retreat one day. 3. Putinism feeds off the weakness of Europe. My modest advice is to reinforce sanctions and not to get into this trap of Putin’s. 4. The Western world is being forced to follow a terrible pagan logic: how many more victims are needed to switch, at last, to the third phase of sanctions?
Maybe, the forum also appraised the arguments of Bernard Kouchner, the former French foreign minister. He thinks that: “1.The potential and strength of Ukraine has struck the inert Europe, and it is a warning that this Europe must undergo profound changes and be more active. 2. We are not talking much about the occupation of Crimea, as if it were no longer topical. I think it is absolutely inadmissible. 3. I do not know whether Donbas separatists can be called “terrorists,” but they are obviously rude people [very “frank” words indeed! Let us recall Putin’s “courteous” people in Crimea. – Author]. 4. There must be perhaps more serious sanctions against Putin, but, frankly speaking, sanctions have never and nowhere worked, except for in African countries. Besides, there are commercial interests that involve Putin [not in the least, on the part of French companies. – Author].”
The conference may have also discussed the words of the Ukrainian humans right activist, public figure, and philosopher Myroslav Marynovych. Addressing the forum, he said in particular: “1. The No.1 thing now is our Ukrainian system of values. If we forget about a value-related basis, the Maidan may cease to be good and radiant in the literal and figurative sense of the word. We (and the Maidan) may remain fighters but cease to be human rights champions. [It is all very complicated here: when, in Sloviansk and Kramatorsk, the scum terrorize and kill civilians, fire at Ukrainian soldiers with mortars installed in the city’s residential neighborhoods, how can “human rights” be protected concretely, not abstractly? And is it possible to do so, making concessions to the terrorists? Questions, questions… – Author.] 2. In a way, the Maidan proves the imperfection of our democracy. For if it were perfect, there would have been no need of such a colossal explosion as the Maidan. 3. You can often hear it said: ‘Your government does not hear the Donbas.’ I asked in Donetsk: ‘What region of Ukraine did Kyiv hear? Maybe, the south, the north, the center, or the West?’ There was laughter in reply – they seemed to be perplexed. 4. If we sacrifice values for the sake of security, we will lose both. 5. I am pinning the main hope on the younger generation. For it begins at last to speak in the language of values, not ideology. This is extremely important. These young people hold not only the future, but also, to a considerable extent, the present day in their hands.”
There is every reason to believe that the conference also discussed the speeches of the Russian guests – public figures and writers – who positioned themselves as liberals and adversaries of Putin’s regime. Let us listen to them. Aleksandr Podrabinek: “1.Our fatal mistake is underestimation of the role and potential of governmental propaganda. It is propaganda that causes bloodshed. 2. But you cannot ban propaganda without detriment to the freedom of speech. It is wrong to disconnect ‘hostile’ Russian TV channels – you should counterpoise them with trustworthy information which will take a part of society out of the condition of ‘fogged consciousness’ (calls from the audience: ‘Do not forget they shoot here, there’s a war going on!’). 3. Anti-Putin sanctions should have been imposed years ago, when Russia began to infringe the freedom of speech. 4. The only goal of the Kremlin’s policy is to keep the power they usurped stable. This is why their actions are being more and more aggressive. This only strengthens the regime. 5. The Kremlin is playing with the tension it creates. Then it ‘sets conditions’ under which it could ease this tension. 6. Sanctions against Putin are a simulation intended for the ‘domestic European consumer.’ The West still views the Kremlin as a ‘conventional European government.’ It is a terrible mistake.” And, finally, here is what the writer Viktor Yerofeyev said: “There are powerful archaic geysers of totalitarian ‘leader-seeking’ mentality gushing out in Russian society now. No liberal education has ever been put forward against this in Russia. We are successors to and descendants of an ‘inexperienced’ population with an archaic mentality. There is this kind of consciousness in Africa, too, but while it is localized there, it is all-pervading here in Russia.”
***
By all accounts, one of the main questions that participants in the conference “Ukraine: Thinking Together” attempted to answer is whether the world needs Ukrainian freedom. And it is very important that, although many speeches were disputable, it was stated in no uncertain terms that it is needed. For freedom is indivisible. For there will be no free (now “inert”) Europe without a free Ukraine. And, after all, our best people have laid down their lives for European freedom and a European Ukraine – on the Maidan and elsewhere.
