In this project, we are trying to determine what constitutes a Ukrainian victory. I don’t know if it is premature, but I feel we need to hear different opinions. As Maslow’s pyramid teaches us, we can have a lot and still be dissatisfied, and vice versa – the minimum is enough to feel happy. Are we being maximalists in the story of the Ukrainian victory, or is it good?
We should always think about victory. If something is to happen, it must occur in someone’s head. Someone must understand what it means. Unless we realize what victory is, we will never achieve it. If we set unrealistic goals, we will always be disappointed. And if we set inadequate goals, we will always make mistakes along the way. So this goal seems certainly appropriate to me. It has been the first day of this stage of the war, a large-scale invasion. From day one, we have to think about it.
Does this topic come up quite often if you follow the media and existing narratives?
I don’t follow it very much, rather sporadically. But I often hear strange opinions, some maximalist beliefs that our goal is to divide Russia up to the Pacific Ocean into 20 or so other areas. It would all be good. Emotionally, I agree with everything. For all that they have done for us, even more – would be nice, but it seems we need to set a goal we can control. We can reach, and that somehow depends on us. And if we set such a goal, our efforts will be appropriate and have meaningful content.
I would say we live in a kind of soft dictatorship. It is probably normal because it is a military dictatorship, not a military one. Our censorship is also soft because we can now safely talk about these things. They will be published. Nevertheless, we know that the main narrative is now somehow controlled by the government, the Zelenskyy administration. It seems, to me, that as former media professionals, he, Yermak, and many people in his entourage are trying to control the opinions of people in Ukraine and probably consider this their primary mission. Do you have this feeling?
Yes, the team you mentioned pays attention to this and does it professionally. Maybe there are some comments on this, but I would say that it is more or less good. We don’t have a dictatorship, total censorship, you name it. But we do have a particular mainstream, to a certain extent propagandistic. Now I will say something for which I would have hated myself two or three years ago. There must be some dominant narrative because we are in a situation with much fear and other potent effects and emotions. People are losing a lot. They are afraid of a lot. And so that fear does not fill our heads and emotions so that God does not take away our minds... Because what happens when God takes away your mind? Strong feelings filled your head. We think what we feel, not what we need to think and analyze. In that sense, I think the situation is more or less balanced. Of course, I would not want all this to be taken for Zelensky or against Zelensky. I don’t care. It said, I am for the Ukrainian president as he is now, thank God, and for the Ukrainian state.
Since the Soviet times, the concept of Russian hybrid warfare has paid much attention to special operations aimed at psychology, specifically at suppressing the enemy’s morale. We understand that this narrative helps everyone to be more resilient. But it is already mid-June. You always have to trust someone in this government. Okay, we have Arestovych, but his predictions do not come true. Budanov talked about a lot, and his predictions are trustworthy. And one of his most famous predictions is that Ukrainians will enter the Crimea by the end of this spring. Podolyak, an advisor to the Presidential Office, even promised to join in from the Yalta embankment. It is all behind us now. We have missed these milestones. Will this pumping up of optimism have a side effect?
No one has ever won a war by looking at things quite realistically. There is always overestimation. If I do not go to a bomb shelter at night because I see a MiG flying, carrying «Daggers,»[Russian hypersonic missile] I doubt one of them will hit me. It means that I am still an optimist, like most Ukrainians. Because if we reacted to every stress to the fullest extent possible, we would not survive. And this overestimation, this sometimes unjustified optimism, must exist. We are disappointed in those who said something, whom we believed, and it did not come true. But they do their job well: they give a forecast, and this forecast awakens our faith. Did something not work out? Just wait a little bit. You know, it is good to manage these teams on the couch, but it’s much harder to do it in the field. I would not evaluate these people by what they said first, second, or third and whether it came true. As an intelligence officer, he has to not only reassure us but also deceive them. I would assess whether he is a good fit for us or not. It will be clear from the distance of time, and we will better see who played what role and who was in what position.
According to the polls, Ukrainians are now more optimistic than ever. Can this last for another year, two, or three? How long can this optimism be sustained?
If we are talking about the mainstream, it is optimistic. We want to win. And we reject compromises, and this is a sign of an optimistic outlook. We estimate that we have a good chance of winning. And we will be able to defend justice and ourselves. It may take some time – I do not know, a year or two or a month – but it cannot be an infinite strategy. If society had not believed Arestovych on the first day or week of the war and, for example, thought that the war would last for a year and a half, I don’t know if we would have had enough resistance if there would have been such long lines at military registration and enlistment offices if we would have been so unequivocal and firm in our position.
Some overestimations and illusions help. I had understood everything so well in that life. Then I wouldn’t have gotten up from the couch this morning because I would die regardless (laughs). And so I got up, came to you, and am talking.
Let’s talk about how we are changing. The other day there was an episode like this: a shark attacked a young Russian tourist near a beach on the Red Sea. He called for help. Someone filmed it on the phone. It was a terrible video. I watched it. Many people gloated, saying it was minus another Russian enemy. Ukrainians were divided in opinions. I understand that dehumanizing the enemy is normal to a certain extent, but are there any dangerous lines we should not cross? Can we not transfer these emotions, this aggression, to those closest to us? For example, to react very aggressively to the Russian language on the street? How much does this change us for the worse?
War makes people not only kinder. There are not only acts of heroism, altruism, humanity, faith, and good deeds, but war can also sometimes make us cruel. We are dehumanized, and this ethical line is thin. We cannot establish it once and for all – we must always discuss it. We will always be a little bit too radical or a little bit too soft, so society has to have this internal dialog. As for the case you mentioned, it’s hard to say anything specific. He was not armed, not in uniform, not on Ukrainian territory. There are no «good Russians» – there are useful and harmful ones. However, to rejoice over a shark that ate the Russian, unless he committed any crimes or publicly supported the war... I don’t know. I don’t rejoice, but I understand people who do. I can emotionally understand them. None of us are saints. After such crimes and atrocities, it is in line with human nature. But I would be more careful about it myself.
We say that Ukrainians are fighting for freedom. Many people hope that in this struggle, we can invent new meanings or restore old ones for Europe, showing that we are ready to die for values. And these are not just words, slogans. But to what extent does freedom come first for Ukrainians? We started with the fact – we live in a soft but military dictatorship, a country mobilized for war, where censorship and even more self-censorship.
And I would say that this is good. We are a horizontally organized community. It means that we do not trust the government very much. We put up its existence because someone else’s government is worse than ours. But power is not so good for Ukrainians, who trust horizontal ties and rely on relationships rather than institutions, procedures, and laws. They focus on the traditions of relationships rather than the formal aspects of coexistence. It has a lot of potential and opportunities. There is a crisis in the world: the dollar is falling or rising, the price of oil is falling or rising, and the life of an average Ukrainian does not change much because there is a «cushion» of these relationships.
One the one hand, it is a strength. On the other hand, this is our weakness. When establishing the law and rules where we need to focus, protecting property or security, where we need institutional protection, we still need to learn. I do not share the view that we are somehow special. We have a special mission for others, and I am pessimistic about this history. We won three revolutions, and now we have the war going on for ten years... It means that we cannot accomplish the first feat of the ancient hero – we cannot ensure security and property rights, for example, the basic, fundamental values on which Western societies develop. It indicates the complexity. Not because we are worse than our neighbors but because we live too close to an empire with ambitions. After this war, we must not teach others –I don’t care about teaching others –but master other opportunities. Winning a war is not the same as building highways, establishing independent courts, reducing domestic aggression levels, and creating a positive attitude in society, culture – towards freedom, law, children, or some neglected people. We will have to learn a lot ourselves. And whether we will be an example for others is up to those others to decide. It is their business whether to follow our example or not.
Our Ukrainian totem is Makhno.
In particular, and in addition to him, Sheptytsky, Franko, Danylo Halytsky, and Mazepa. But Makhno is the one.
Those who can fight well, who find it challenging to create civilization...
Yes.
What should change in people’s minds? Will the war somehow help or hinder this? I am frightened by the example of Afghanistan. A country that has not allowed itself to be conquered by anyone but has also failed to build itself and has lost an essential layer for living and developing. People left or died.
Because Afghanistan was based on religious fundamentalism, it seems this is a hopeless archaic way back. Their main idea is that we will return to that golden age. But there was no golden age, and there is no golden age. We are just inventing that golden age. In Ukraine, another idea still dominates the idea of going forward. The idea of «what are we fighting for» dominates. We need to understand what we are fighting for. Then we can understand what our victory is. The Russian Empire raised the question of the very existence of the Ukrainian people. If there is a «single nation,» there are no Ukrainians. That is, we are fighting for our existence, for the fact we exist – this is the first thing. Second, we are fighting for security on this land. But security can only live under a dictator who has distributed 100 grams of bread to everyone, and everyone has to obey him. That is why we are fighting for rules. So, existence and security can be ensured by NATO since there is no better system of collective security, and rights can be ensured by the EU. It allows us to modernize, not return to some archaic Cossack state. There may be some sabers and Cossack haircuts at festivals or holidays, but there should be highways, airports, IT, et cetera with a humanistic attitude to people.
We have already had three revolutions, which we have mentioned. To a certain extent, we have a continuation of 2014 because that’s when this war started. All Ukrainian revolutions have won. Otherwise, we would probably be in a completely different situation. But each time was a colossal disappointment with the consequences of this victory or its achievements and an underestimation. We talked with Miroslaw Czech, ex-Balcerowicz assistant and an advisor to Groysman’s government. And he said that there were colossal, superb reforms. However, Ukrainians thought we had the worst president, prime minister, and generally the worst government in the world (laughs).
The war will end one day, and everyone will say: «Oh, Ukraine won, great!» Will there not be a feeling that we lost? Will we win the wrong way? Will everything be wrong?
«We won the wrong way, we won the wrong thing» will happen because it is in line with the Ukrainian character. No matter what happens, it will not be the way we dreamed it would be. We deserve it. We are going to teach others how great we are. On the one hand, yes, but I think that’s the emotional part – that we will always be disappointed. We have already said that Ukrainians don’t like any government because they did not have a good government. Therefore, any government, any win, will be different, and that’s normal. Go to Italy or the United States and see and talk to people: one part says one thing, and the other says the opposite. The problem is that new media has created a new reality. Elites do not control information. Some algorithms on Facebook or Twitter regulate what we read and think. The old elites have lost control over it, and most of the population does not know how to use it. We have not yet mastered it, not only in Ukraine but also in the world. We have not grasped the new reality we have entered very rapidly. Ten years ago, I used to buy newspapers at the newsstand, and now I don’t even know if they exist.
But it is said that Gutenberg’s invention caused the revolution that caused horror, including in the centers of education, which were monasteries. At that time, they did not know how to react to this.
Yes. In the long run, institutions and democracy will master these new opportunities. We are simply living at a turning point. It applies not only to Ukraine. We will always be dissatisfied, no matter what the victory is. And I would prefer to be discontent with the victory, and I wish us all that.
We still have to live to see it. But won’t there be a danger, as Yevhen Hlibovytsky, in particular, says, that a large wave of euroscepticism will rise in our country? It could turn us around a lot. Just a while ago, I was talking to a professor of medicine who said: «You know, I had different ideas about Zelensky, but now he’s doing a great job. The only thing I want is for him to leave immediately after the victory.» But does our President Zelensky have this personality type? Will he also not have what the Poles call a «zawroty głowy» [dizziness] after the war?
I do not know. I am not a good forecaster. I do not know what will happen to Zelensky, what will happen to us. I would like to see us win, and then there will be some elections in which someone will win. Maybe Zelensky, if he is adequate to the situation. He is appropriate for the current one, but I don’t know about the next one. If he is competent, he will be elected. If not, Ukrainians will vote for someone else. I will always give him credit as he behaved in those worst periods. We have got tanks. We will get aircraft soon. We are not giving up, and we are fighting. He should get his due. But is he a saint? Probably not. I will pay tribute to him, and then time will pass – I will turn another page, and then we will see what persons are standing there.
And finally, to summarize: what is the minimum set for you that would allow you to say: «Okay, we have won»?
As much territory as we recapture, so much will be ours. Of course, we would like to have all of it, but whatever we manage to get, as far as possible, will be ours. Then there may be some diplomatic and political processes. It is unknown how it will be. However, at the moment, it is the EU and NATO. These are markers that we are entering the Western world. And we are creating conditions for further modernization. It is not the goal. It is the means. To be more precise, the goal in this war is to join the EU and NATO, and then we get a chance. It is a necessary but not sufficient condition for further modernization and success in competition with other nations in the positive sense of the word. Who will make more scientific discoveries, make the average person’s life better, find more mental and spiritual meanings, and live in better harmony with nature – these are the next questions. But for now, we are not addressing them, but rather the issue of border security and rules.
Do you believe that Ukrainians will eventually become just an ordinary, perhaps somewhat humdrum nation in Eastern Europe?
It’s my dream! Of course, your viewers won’t like it, but I dream that thrill-seekers will climb mountains, fly to the poles, and explore Mars. There will be a niche for them. There will be the military and special services – let them do their thing. But, in general, the average person will live such a humdrum, predictable life. Then we will face new challenges, such as the meaning of life. But this will happen only when we solve the problems we face.
Translated by Yulian Lahun
Follow us on Facebook and Instagram. Lviv Now is an English-language website for Lviv, Ukraine’s «tech-friendly cultural hub.» It is produced by Tvoe Misto («Your City») media hub, which hosts regular problem-solving public forums to benefit the city and its people.
