A few words in defense of Klyuchevsky

On October 6, the President of Ukraine met (reportedly, in an “informal atmosphere”) students and professors of history at Kyiv National Taras Shevchenko University. First, about positive impressions of this event held to mark the 150th anniversary of Mykhailo Hrushevsky’s birth.

Firstly, the very fact of this meeting is worthy of praise. The head of state justly noted that historians are performing a particularly important mission during the information war (in essence, an information aggression) the Russian Federation unleashed against us, and “the main weapon of a present-day Ukrainian historian in this fight is the truth and facts.” It is difficult to deny this.

Secondly, the following statement of Petro Poroshenko is noteworthy: “Unlike the aggressor, we do not need to concoct history.” For we “have never stolen from anybody either the name of our country, or our history, or our historical heroes.” Incidentally, Den has been long and stubbornly defending this viewpoint in our books Ukraine Incognita (2002), Dvi Rusi (2003), and particularly The Power of the Soft Sign (2011), Return to Tsarhorod (2015), and My Sister Sofia... (2016). It is gratifying that this message has come from the mouth of our president (perhaps for the first time in Ukraine’s contemporary history at such a level).

Thirdly, the following words of Poroshenko are significant: “I am convinced that all Ukrainian students at all higher educational institutions must assiduously and compulsorily study the history of Ukraine. And a time has come at last for Ukrainian historians to come out of quiet study rooms and actively mingle with the public at large.” It is quite a sound opinion. I will only make three small remarks. Firstly, what about the Education and Science Ministry’s intention to cut history teaching hours at universities? Does it mean that the idea has been finally dropped? Secondly, what about funding the humanities, including history, at both research institutes and universities of Ukraine? The real level of these funds is catastrophically negligible. Therefore, fine words remain fine words. And, thirdly, Den can say frankly and without false modesty that we “haven’t been sitting in the quiet of study rooms” but, without counting on state support, we have pursued a Ukrainian humanitarian policy of our own, which meets the needs of society. We have been doing so for 20 years. We strove to contribute to the making of a civil society in Ukraine well before 1999, we tried to “work with society” and bring European values to people in the hard years of Kuchma’s and Yanukovych’s totalitarian power, and, in the past few years, to change our national character. For if we fail to do this, power will be always wielded by politicians who focus not on Ukraine but on a “great scramble for the trough” (Lina Kostenko) and are trying to adjust the system to themselves rather than change it. The above-said is in no way a publicity stunt but just objective factors.

And, finally, about things that are not so pleasant to Bankova St. “helmsmen.” The tragedy (this word is no exaggeration) of present-day Ukraine is that absolutely, 100-percent, right words, said at the highest governmental level (and there must be very strict criteria here) but not followed by real and concrete actions, inevitably cast doubt on sincerity, the key point in this situation, and, hence, on public trust in the government. Unfulfilled promises (i.e., populism which not only the opposition must be blamed for) devalue fine words. For a lot of people still remember well.

Photo by Mykola TYMCHENKO, The Day

Also noteworthy is the “quotation culture” of the president’s speechwriters. These people put the head of state into, to put it mildly, an awkward situation. For Mr. Poroshenko’s phrase “History is not a teacher but an overseer; it does not teach but punishes” is almost direct quotation from the great Russian historian Vasily Klyuchevsky with no reference to the source. The context is not very consolatory, if you come to think of it.

“POLITICIANS NEED A SERIOUS EDUCATION IN HISTORY”

Volodymyr PANCHENKO, Doctor of Philology, professor, National University of Kyiv Mohyla Academy:

“As President Poroshenko delivered his lecture to mark the 150th birth anniversary of Mykhailo Hrushevsky, it is only natural that a part of it was about this historian and politician. It is important that the lecture emphasized that Hrushevsky, as a historian, ‘returned’ to Ukrainians a part of our heritage – Rus’ – which Muscovy annexed in the era of Peter I. It is no accident that he titled his main publication History of Ukraine-Rus’. I can remember that when the Act of Independence was being proclaimed in 1991, a question arose about what our state should be called. Dmytro Pavlychko cried out ‘Ukraine!’ There were also other suggestions, for example, ‘Republic of Ukraine.’ It seems somebody mentioned ‘Ukraine-Rus’,’ too. Who knows, maybe, it would have been better to follow Hrushevsky’s advice. It would then be clearer to many here and abroad whose successors we are. For, you see, politicians can still be heard saying: ‘Ukraine is a young state.’ But we should always remind people of a thousand-year-long history of our statehood.

“The president’s lecture also comprised ‘mild’ criticism of Hrushevsky the politician – we should not make an icon out of him; he lived under specific political circumstances and, hence, had some illusions and made some mistakes… Of course, he did. Has the current president never made mistakes? Politicians should just bear in mind that history is a harsh judge, and you should not be surprised (or, moreover, take offence) if your contemporary compatriots level some criticism at you. One should not trust the ‘entourage’ that tells an ‘important person’ that he or she is the best and sinless. There will be fewer mistakes in this case.

“Incidentally, Hrushevsky was a very ambitious person; he wanted to play first fiddle only and was inclined to engage in intrigues. The same applies to Vynnychenko and Petliura. The unbridled ambitions of bigger and lesser leaders have always brought Ukraine into trouble.

“Then Petro Poroshenko said, not without irony, that we might as well thank Putin for helping us drop illusions about a multi-vector approach. I wish he hadn’t said it! There’s nothing to thank Putin for, even ironically. For it is better to drop illusions without the terrible experience Ukraine has been gaining for almost three years. And it’s better to do without such ‘helpers’ as Putin. Politicians just need to read books, including those on the history of Ukraine. When Defense Minister Poltorak says: ‘Who could imagine that Russia would attack us?’ I would like first to ask the minister what kind of books he has read. Has he ever pondered over the history of Ukraine – at least in the past 400 years? Does he know what George Shevelov said (and Den has written about this so many times) about Ukraine’s three main enemies: the first is Muscovy, the second is the Kochubei mentality, i.e., the ‘fifth column,’ and the third is provincialism? These words were written in the now distant 1954.

“And has he (as well as, naturally, other Ukrainian politicians – dead, living, and still to be born) ever analyzed the course and logic of the 1917-20 hybrid Russian-Ukrainian war? The Bolsheviks were also saying in Moscow at the time: ‘There are no ours there! They are fighting between themselves – the revolutionary Ukrainian army and Kiev’s nationalists.’ When Shchors entered Kyiv on February 1919, he said frankly that Soviet Russia had armed and trained his units in Kursk (!).

“This was always the case. Peter I, Catherine II, Lenin with Trotsky, and Putin were molded from the same imperial dough. And Russia will put up with the existence of the state of Ukraine only when she disintegrates (she is historically doomed to this). So let us take heart. There will be no true peace until Russia shrinks to the original size of Muscovy.

“I am speaking now of the historical ABC which is also supposed to be the political ABC. It’s a pity that our rulers of various times and calibers have been learning it very slowly. Politicians need a serious education in history. Otherwise, they will be wondering over and over again: ‘Who could imagine that?’ and then ‘thanking’ some of our enemies for teaching us something.”

“WE WELCOME ANY STEPS TO MEET US HALFWAY”

Kyrylo HALUSHKO, coordinator, nonprofit educational project “Likbez. Historical Front” (started as public historian at Den):

“Proceeding from what the president said, I can conclude that, by contrast with the Yushchenko era, there are some instruments now for putting the civic activity of historians to good use. The state is ineffective in this case, but there are various initiatives, such as our project ‘Likbez. Historical Front,’ which can promote the ideas though the National Unity Public Council under the President of Ukraine. Obviously, we are unlikely to get governmental funds, but still it is some kind of official support – turning to the agencies, we thus compel them to do their job. In other words, there is some progress in this case. This level of attention enables us to use and press on governmental institutions so that they at least do not allow their indifference to foil good civic initiatives. We welcome any steps to meet us halfway. We are skeptical and cherish no illusions. But what I like is that, by contrast with President Yushchenko’s original ideas of Ukrainian history, I heard nothing original today – this means, as far as I can see, that the present incumbent relies on sound-minded history experts and is not trying to concoct something. His call on historians to intensify cooperation with society contained no proposals of ideological nature or pressing recommendations. So it only depends on active historians what kind of proposals, demands, and questions will be put to and answered by the state.”

“RULERS OUGHT TO MAKE USE OF DEN’S ASSETS”

Stanislav KULCHYTSKYI, Doctor of History:

“I have repeatedly commented in Den’s articles that Putin did Ukraine a ‘favor’ by attacking us and thus laying bare his intentions and showing who is who. Putin has really rallied the Ukrainian people by means of his aggression. I can make allowances for Poroshenko because he is not a specialist and relies on what experts, his advisers and assistants prepare for him. But sometimes the officials who are supposed to make use of intellectual power behave as if they were academics. Quite often, their opinion is not one of an expert.

“The newspaper Den has spotlighted many times the points Poroshenko touched upon in his speech to mark Mykhailo Hrushevsky’s anniversary. I would not like to sharply criticize the president, for I believe he is a person who will come up to expectations. But, unfortunately, reforms are being declared but in fact not carried out. Who should we pin our hopes on? It would be wrong to join all the trolls who criticize the head of state indiscriminately, with or without a reason. But there are things that must not be left unnoticed. We must be as conscientious as possible in assessing the president and history. Den, a unique publication indeed, has been choosing history as a weapon, not as a usual self-teaching manual, for the past 20 years. Den is fighting for the present-day and historical veritable Ukrainian truth. I think for this reason that rulers ought to make use and speak of this newspaper’s assets. A time will eventually come when the top will have to call a spade a spade. In particular, what is going on in the Donbas should be called a war, not an ‘anti-terrorist operation.’

“This also applies to many other historical and current aspects. The situation is that the bleeding Ukraine continues to sell defense-related products to the aggressor. This approach can make us even lose our statehood, for there is no proof that Russia will drop its criminal intentions. The history of Ancient Rus’ is concentrated in Ukraine, on Kyiv’s hills, as Svetlana Alexievich said very well in an interview with Den. These extremely important historical excursuses are also the subject of Den’s Library books, particularly The Power of the Soft Sign and Return to Tsarhorod. I don’t know any other Ukrainian periodical that pays so meticulous and undivided attention to the problems of history and the lessons that we must learn hard and fast. This is Den’s solid line. It’s a pity that the president does not devote his attention to this, and even if he does, he never refers to this source.”

 Interviewed by Valentyn TORBA, The Day