On the factors of instability

France is one of the most developed countries of the EU, and it probably has the most pragmatic attitude towards Ukraine. Nowadays there are very few experts who can offer a deliberate opinion of the situation in Ukraine. Historian and journalist Volodymyr Kosyk can be considered the most experienced one, because he has been participating in developing the relations between Ukraine and France since 1951. Kosyk spoke about his work at the Sorbonne, analyzed the causes of political instability in Ukraine, and commented on urgent historical issues in a special interview to The Day.

You were one of the last students of the great diplomacy historian Jean-Baptiste Duroselle. What was his vision of the role of Ukraine in the world?

“When I started attending his lectures, he was not yet very familiar with the Ukrainian affairs. I brought up this matter during one of my obligatory speeches I had to give during seminar classes. That is when he sincerely became interested in Ukraine and its significance. He helped us create a Center of Ukrainian Studies at the Modern International Relations Institute of the Sorbonne (University Paris 1), which existed during 1979-84 and was headed by professor Snidarich. Duroselle helped me to publish my thesis The Policy of France Concerning Ukraine in 1917-18 in 1981 at the Sorbonne publishing house. I defended it in front of the research committee headed by Duroselle (the chancellor of the Ukrainian Free University, professor Yanev was a member of the committee too). Until present time this publication has been the only Ukrainian research work created by a Ukrainian and published at Sorbonne. Professor Duroselle said that it was the beginning of creating a ‘Ukrainian library’ at his institute.”

Professor, you remember all the governments of France since the times of de Gaulle. What has changed in the attitude towards Ukraine over the last two decades?

“Everything depends on Kyiv’s policy, in particular, concerning the EU and the US. Under the previous regime Ukraine was supported by the US. And now they are hesitating.”

You have lived in many countries in your lifetime: the Ukrainian SSR, France, Germany, Taiwan, Thailand, the US, Great Britain. You have witnessed different political and occupational regimes in Europe. How can you explain this long-lasting political instability of Ukraine?

“I think that instability in Ukraine has two major causes. Firstly, the political life in Ukraine is created not by Ukrainians, but by the politicians of ‘Soviet’ origin and upbringing, former ‘Soviet’ patriots who were distant from Ukrainian nation, they only looked up to Moscow. But they do love power. Secondly, the political consciousness of the Ukrainian people could not develop naturally, it was suppressed by propaganda and the ‘political thinking’ of the invaders, including Soviet Moscow. The national thought was oppressed as ‘bourgeois nationalism’ and consequently it was a reason for persecution and punishment. The word ‘national’ tends to be avoided even today. For example, in France the production is called French, or national, and in Ukraine it is called ‘domestic,’ because using the word ‘national’ is still taboo. This is, so to speak, the ‘Soviet’ syndrome.”

Nowadays a lot is being said about the conflicts inside Ukrainian society, the inability of the incumbent government to understand people. Let us remember the disunity of Ukrainians during the national liberation movements in 1917-19, or the faith in the Germans creating a Ukrai-nian autonomy during the World War II. Ukrainians don’t learn from their past mistakes, do they?

“Ukrainian nation is no worse than any other European nation. But the age-long Russian and Soviet occupation led to the situation in which Ukrainians were not allowed to form their own political culture. History was studied through the prism of Rus-sian and imperial interests. Thus, it was not easy to create independent political culture, preserve the knowledge about the history of the Ukrainian nation, and fight for a place among the free nations under such conditions. It is also a matter of truly free education, studying, in particular studying history, and the cherishing of national identification and spirit.”

Recently Ukraine’s Minister of Education Dmytro Tabachnyk stated that the chapters about the UPA and Orange Revolution in history books had been rewritten. What impact, in your opinion, will this “rewriting” have?

“History is a matter of science, not politics. This ‘rewriting of history has a clear political nature, and not scholarly. The whole world calls this the World War II. And only Stalinist Russia accepted a different name for it. By the way, Russian emigrants in Berlin in 1943, who watched the developments in the USSR, noticed the return to the ancient traditions of the tsarist Russia, including the struggle against the Napoleon’s invasion in 1812. They pointed out to the Nazi government that political changes had begun in Soviet Russia: ‘Stalin admitted that the idea of the world communist revolution is of zero value to Russians, therefore, he declared the patriotic war, just as it happened in 1812; there (in Russia) commissars were canceled, Jews were moved to the background, old tsarist army uniforms and ranks, alongside with the traditional orders and other awards, were reestablished, etc. A new national spirit is beginning to rise there.’ By the way, the author of this document, Igor Sakharov, added that ‘during the recent 25 years, all the nations (of the USSR) have learned to think in a Soviet, or Great Russian way more or less voluntarily’ (German archives, R 43 II/683a). The identification of these two attributes says a lot.”

Now Ukraine’s government has again opted for a multi-vector policy.

“In my opinion, the multi-vector policy in foreign affair is not Ukraine’s main problem. The problem is the realization of whether Ukraine is a European country. Some Western politicians, who are benevolent to Russia, look at Ukraine as at the country in Asia or a replica of Russia in Eurasia. In reality, Ukraine has always belonged in Europe, while Russia is an Asian country both historically and politically. It just came closer to Europe at the beginning of the 18th century, during Peter the Great’s reign.”

The way Stepan Bandera is being treated by the incumbent government is absolutely opposite to the way he was treated by the previous one. However, western Ukraine has become increasingly active. Bandera was recognized as an honorable citizen of Lviv, Chervonohrad, and Truskavets. In March he became an honorable citizen of Brody. How do these double standards influence the international image of Ukraine? Neither Poles nor Russians like Bandera.

“Let us not forget the incredibly wide-scale and ardent Moscow and communist propaganda against the Ukrainian national liberation movement during the war. Moscow maintained that the Ukrainian liberation movement and nationalism were ‘created’ by Nazi Germany and those were the German ‘collaborationists.’ Communists, including Ukrainian ones, said that only Soviet guerrillas fought against fascism.”