What do you think?
Rate this book
The Tragedy of Ukraine: What Classical Greek Tragedy Can Teach Us About Conflict Resolution
The conflict in Ukraine has deep domestic roots. A third of the population, primarily in the East and South, regards its own Russian cultural identity as entirely compatible with a Ukrainian civic identity. The state’s reluctance to recognize this ethnos as a legitimate part of the modern Ukrainian nation, has created a tragic cycle that entangles Ukrainian politics.
The Tragedy of Ukraine argues that in order to untangle the conflict within the Ukraine, it must be addressed on an emotional, as well as institutional level. It draws on Richard Ned Lebow’s ‘tragic vision of politics’ and on classical Greek tragedy to assist in understanding the persistence of this conflict. Classical Greek tragedy once served as a mechanism in Athenian society to heal deep social trauma and create more just institutions. The Tragedy of Ukraine reflects on the ways in which ancient Greek tragedy can help us rethink civic conflict and polarization, as well as model ways of healing deep social divisions.
The Tragedy of Ukraine argues that in order to untangle the conflict within the Ukraine, it must be addressed on an emotional, as well as institutional level. It draws on Richard Ned Lebow’s ‘tragic vision of politics’ and on classical Greek tragedy to assist in understanding the persistence of this conflict. Classical Greek tragedy once served as a mechanism in Athenian society to heal deep social trauma and create more just institutions. The Tragedy of Ukraine reflects on the ways in which ancient Greek tragedy can help us rethink civic conflict and polarization, as well as model ways of healing deep social divisions.
520 pages, Kindle Edition
Published December 19, 2022
2 people are currently reading
72 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 3 of 3 reviews
February 5, 2024
(The English review is placed beneath the Russian one)
По делам, по делам –
Повсюду там и тут
Помелом по телам
За пряник или кнут,
Но в одном тут и там
Лишь неизменна константа –
Пропаганда!
Я стараюсь следовать одному правилу при выборе книг о современной Украине: автор должен быть кто угодно, но только не гражданин, который проживает в России или в Украине. Я считаю, что в обоих случаях книга не может быть объективной. Но как показала эта книга, даже следуя этому правилу нужно быть осторожным и тщательно следить за тем, на основании каких источников делает свои выводы автор, а также кем является автор. Это особенно важно, если книга критикует украинское правительство. Вообще, мне нужно быть в этой связи ещё более осторожным, ибо очень тонка грань между конструктивной критикой, основанной на фактах и огульной российской пропагандой. Во втором случаи факты часто искажаются или преувеличиваются. К примеру, такой автор ссылается на факт присутствие право-радикалов на Майдане (факт), но которых было меньшинство. Исходя из данного факта – присутствия радикалов на Майдане – можно сделать два кардинально различных утверждения: "из нескольких тысяч обычных людей, на Майдане также было несколько десятков право-радикалов" и "Майдан был заполнен радикалами (создавая, таким образом, картину, что все участники Майдана были радикалами)". Чувствуете разницу? Один и тот же факт, но подаётся в совершенно разных формах, где одна такая форма является явно искажённой. К чему я это всё? А к тому, что я намеревался поставить этой книге положительную оценку, но потом обнаружил один факт, который полностью перевернул моё отношение к этой книге и этому автору.
С моей точки зрения тема греческой трагедии используется автором сугубо в качестве ширмы, реальной же темой является украинский национализм, приведший сначала к гражданской войне, а после и войне с Россией (так читается книга). Начало мне понравилось, не скрою, ибо я много где встречал претензию украинскому правительству, и в частности к Ющенко, в том что, начиная с 2004 года, украинские власти начали разгонять националистическую риторику. Я согласен с этими претензиями, ибо считаю, что наиважнейшими вопросами, требовавшими скорейшего решения, были вопросы упрочнения демократических институтов и демократии в Украине и вопросы, связанные с коррупцией. Бандера, УПА, Голодомор и прочие националистические темы были явно не к месту. Автор этой книги очень убедительно раскрывает данные вопросы, начиная с темы двух украин и заканчивая националистической моноэтнической риторикой Ющенко, которая, как я отметил выше, была крайне не к месту. Но! Я отметил две украины, так? Автор обозначает их так: the narratives of two distinct Ukrainian identities – Galician and Maloross. Что такое Maloross? Я прочитал много иностранных авторов о современной Украине, но я не помню, чтобы кто-то использовал термин Maloross. Мне кажется корректней использовать термины восточные и западные Украинцы. Но это так, заметка на полях.
Автор вторит многим авторам, пишущим о современной Украине, что западные Украинцы, считаю важным проведение политики полного отрицания всего, что связано с Россией и СССР. Я не буду повторяться, ибо об этом можно прочесть много где. Далее автор обсуждает такие фигуры как Taras Shevchenko and historian Nikolai Kostomarov, которые предлагали конфедерацию на основе Российской Империи:
Its goal was not Ukrainian independence, but the transformation the Russian Empire into a confederation, in which Ukraine would be one of six historical Russian nationalities.
Далее автор приводит в пример другую фигуру – Khmelnitsky. Честно сказать, я так и не понял, что хотел сказать автор. Он пишет, что «He was viewed positively both by those who saw Ukraine as a southern branch of the Russian nation, and by those who favored the idea of a confederation between Ukraine and Russia». К тому же приведённый тезис взят у такого автор как Oles Buzina (спорная и неоднозначная личность). Ещё одна заметка на полях.
Хочу отметить, что до этого момента речь шла об исторических событиях. Т.е. автор проводит явные параллели между тем, что было ещё в Российской Империи (в которую входила тогдашняя Украина) и современными событиями. Главным элементом является Galician and Maloross. Это был мягкий заход в тему. Далее идёт более серьёзный.
According to this narrative, Galicia’s historical separation from the rest of Ukraine, while unfortunate, was also in some ways fortuitous, since it had led the formation of a distinctive language, a distinctive political culture, and an exposure to Catholicism. And since the struggle to establish an independent Ukraine had emerged within the context of the struggle for Galician identity, its ultimate success had become associated with the cultural and political supremacy of Galician norms within Ukraine.
Зафиксировали главную идею? Далее идёт уже тяжёлая артиллерия.
For Galician Ukrainians, by contrast, the central lesson was that there were too many foreign elements within Ukraine undermining its unity of purpose. In 1926 Dmytro Dontsov wrote his most influential work, Nationalism, specifically to identify Russians, Jews, Poles as foreign elements, and to demolish the notion that Ukraine should be tolerant of diversity.
Теперь более заметен посыл, не так ли? Дальше просто огонь из всех орудий.
The ideology of the OUN was an eclectic mix of authoritarian ideas popular in Europe at the time. A leading figure was Mykola Stsiborskyi, who argued for a Ukrainian form of corporativism that borrowed heavily from fascist Italy. The priority for Ukraine, he said, was to create a highly disciplined revolutionary organization capable of establishing a national dictatorship. He imagined that some day such a dictatorship might be replaced by the direct expression of the people’s will, creating what he called a “Ukrainian spiritual totalitarianism.”
<…>
According to Dontsov, the highest form of nationhood is the conqueror nation – a nation that is willing to transform the world in its own image, regardless of the cost. Ukraine must either become a conqueror nation, or suffer extinction. Its unifying national ideal must therefore be to destroy Russia, for only with Russia dismembered and its territories absorbed into Ukraine, can Ukraine achieve true security and greatness.
Ого! Ну, прям план а-ля Барбаросса 2.0. УПА была очень неоднозначной организацией, к которой относятся с большим подозрением практически все. Но радикалы есть в каждом обществе и как я обозначил в самом начале, можно показать, что их меньшинство, на фоне всего населения, а можно представить их в качестве большинства. Действительно, действия Ющенко в отношении УПА и пр. были чистой демагогией в духе того же Трампа. Но автор тоже нечестен с читателем, ибо рисует западных Украинцев как поголовных сторонников Бандеры и пр. И вот это очевидно. Но не это меня заставило изменить своё отношение к книге. А дальше, после того как автор затронул организацию Rukh, где звучит всё тот же звоночек:
As one of the founders of Rukh (the Movement), he saw federalism as the best way to guarantee the individual and cultural rights enshrined in the Ukrainian Constitution.
<…>
What Chornovil actually wanted for Ukraine, however, was a “unity of historical regions along the lines of the federation of lands of the FRG [Federal Republic of Germany].
Когда автор доходит до Майдана и пр., я в какой-то момент решил посмотреть, на что автор постоянно ссылается и увидел просто поразительные источники (типа RT) но среди них всех выделяется один, который появляется практически через каждую пятую страницу. Можно сказать, это основной источник, на котором базируется книги. Это Ukraina (точка) ru. Конечно, иностранные читатели, возможно, не найдут тут подвоха. Но я то, не иностранец! Я зашёл на этот сайт типа как об Украине. Глянул, кто пишет колонки – неизвестные мне лица, которых не больше 3. Язык только русский, что странно, ибо сайт про Украину подразумевает, что если есть русская версия, просто обязана быть и украинская, но её нет. И ниже я понял, почему её не могло быть в принципе. Я увидел кому принадлежит это СМИ - МИА «Россия сегодня»! Но и не это самое фантастическое. Я зашёл на сайт amazon, где продавалась эта книга и глянул информацию про этого автора. Там есть ссылка на сайт автора. Захожу на его сайт и вижу среди Home, Biography, Articles & Chapters, Books раздел «по-русски». Замечу, что автор является американским учителем из University of Rhode Island. Захожу в раздел «по-русски» и вижу в его «комментарии и публикации» следующее: "Трагедия Украины," Соловьёв Live, 29 июня 2023. Мать твою, это гость СОЛОВЬЁВА!!!!
Вот поэтому и оценка отрицательная. Да, с некоторыми вещами я согласен, но как я могу доверять книге, если я не доверяю тем источникам, на которых она базируется? Если автор хочет критиковать правительство Украины, вся его критика должна быть основана либо на украинских СМИ, либо на международных, но никак не на российских.
I try to follow one rule when choosing books about contemporary Ukraine: the author should be anyone but a citizen who lives in Russia or Ukraine. I believe that in both cases, the book cannot be objective. But as this book has shown, even following this rule, one should be careful and scrutinize what sources the author draws his conclusions from, as well as who the author is. This is especially important if the book criticizes the Ukrainian government. In general, I need to be even more careful in this regard because the line between constructive criticism based on facts and sweeping Russian propaganda is very thin. In the latter case, facts are often distorted or exaggerated. For example, such an author refers to the fact that right-wing radicals were present on Maidan (a fact), but they were a minority. Based on this fact - the presence of radicals on the Maidan - we can make two radically different statements: "out of several thousand ordinary people, there were also several dozen right-wing radicals on the Maidan", and "the Maidan was filled with radicals" (thus creating the picture that all Maidan participants were radicals). Do you feel the difference? The same fact yet presented in completely different forms, where one such form is clearly distorted. What's my point? The point is that I intended to give this book a positive evaluation, but then I discovered one fact that completely changed my attitude toward this book and this author.
From my point of view, the theme of the Greek tragedy is used by the author purely as a screen, while the real theme is Ukrainian nationalism, which led first to the civil war and then to the war with Russia (that's how the book reads). I liked the beginning because I have seen many complaints about the Ukrainian government and Yushchenko in particular, that since 2004, the Ukrainian authorities have started to increase nationalist rhetoric. I agree with these claims because I believe that the most important issues that needed to be resolved as soon as possible were the strengthening of democratic institutions and democracy in Ukraine and issues related to corruption. Bandera, UPA, Holodomor, and other nationalistic topics were clearly out of place. The author of this book exposes these issues very convincingly, starting with the topic of two Ukraine and ending with Yushchenko's nationalistic mono-ethnic rhetoric, which, as I noted above, was very out of place. But! I marked two Ukrainians, right? The author labeled them as follows: "the narratives of two distinct Ukrainian identities - Galician and Maloross." What is Maloross? I have read many foreign authors about modern Ukraine, but I don't remember anyone using the term "Maloross." I think it is more correct to use the terms Eastern and Western Ukrainians. But this is just a side note.
The author echoes many authors who write about modern Ukraine that Western Ukrainians consider important to pursue a policy of complete rejection of everything connected with Russia and the USSR. I will not repeat myself because you can read about it in many books. Then, the author discusses such figures as Taras Shevchenko and historian Nikolai Kostomarov, who proposed a confederation on the basis of the Russian Empire:
Its goal was not Ukrainian independence, but the transformation the Russian Empire into a confederation, in which Ukraine would be one of six historical Russian nationalities.
Then, the author cites another figure - Khmelnitsky - as an example. Frankly speaking, I never understood what the author wanted to say. He writes that "He was viewed positively both by those who saw Ukraine as a southern branch of the Russian nation and by those who favored the idea of a confederation between Ukraine and Russia." Besides, the thesis is taken from such authors as Oles Buzina (a controversial and ambiguous person). One more note in the margins.
I would like to note that, up to this point, we have been talking about historical events. That is, the author draws obvious parallels between what was still in the Russian Empire (which included the then Ukraine) and modern events. The main elements are Galician and Maloross. This was a soft approach to the subject. Next comes a more serious one.
According to this narrative, Galicia’s historical separation from the rest of Ukraine, while unfortunate, was also in some ways fortuitous, since it had led the formation of a distinctive language, a distinctive political culture, and an exposure to Catholicism. And since the struggle to establish an independent Ukraine had emerged within the context of the struggle for Galician identity, its ultimate success had become associated with the cultural and political supremacy of Galician norms within Ukraine.
Did you get the main idea? Next comes "the big guns."
For Galician Ukrainians, by contrast, the central lesson was that there were too many foreign elements within Ukraine undermining its unity of purpose. In 1926 Dmytro Dontsov wrote his most influential work, Nationalism, specifically to identify Russians, Jews, Poles as foreign elements, and to demolish the notion that Ukraine should be tolerant of diversity.
The message is more apparent now, isn't it? Then, fire from all the cannons.
The ideology of the OUN was an eclectic mix of authoritarian ideas popular in Europe at the time. A leading figure was Mykola Stsiborskyi, who argued for a Ukrainian form of corporativism that borrowed heavily from fascist Italy. The priority for Ukraine, he said, was to create a highly disciplined revolutionary organization capable of establishing a national dictatorship. He imagined that some day such a dictatorship might be replaced by the direct expression of the people’s will, creating what he called a “Ukrainian spiritual totalitarianism.”
<…>
According to Dontsov, the highest form of nationhood is the conqueror nation – a nation that is willing to transform the world in its own image, regardless of the cost. Ukraine must either become a conqueror nation, or suffer extinction. Its unifying national ideal must therefore be to destroy Russia, for only with Russia dismembered and its territories absorbed into Ukraine, can Ukraine achieve true security and greatness.
Wow! Well, it's like a plan a la Barbarossa 2.0. The UPA was a very controversial organization, which is regarded with great suspicion by almost everyone. But there are radicals in every society, and as I said in the beginning, you can show them as a minority against the background of the whole population, or you can present them as a majority. Indeed, Yushchenko's actions regarding the UPA, etc., were pure demagogy in the spirit of the same Trump. But the author is also dishonest with the reader because he paints Western Ukrainians as all-round supporters of Bandera. And that is obvious. But that's not what made me change my attitude to the book. And further, after the author touched on the Rukh organization:
As one of the founders of Rukh (the Movement), he saw federalism as the best way to guarantee the individual and cultural rights enshrined in the Ukrainian Constitution.
<…>
What Chornovil actually wanted for Ukraine, however, was a “unity of historical regions along the lines of the federation of lands of the FRG [Federal Republic of Germany].
When the author gets to Maidan, etc., at some point, I decided to look at what the author constantly refers to and saw just astonishing sources (like RT), but among them all, one stands out, which appears almost every fifth page. You could say this is the main source on which the book is based. This is "Ukraina (dot) ru". Of course, foreign readers might not find a catch here. But I am not a foreigner! I went to this site as if it were about Ukraine. I looked at who writes the columns - persons unknown to me, no more than 3 of them. The language is only Russian, which is strange because a site about Ukraine implies that if there is a Russian version, there must be a Ukrainian one, but there is none. And below, I realized why it could not be there in principle. I saw who owns this media outlet - the Rossiya Segodnya news agency! But that's not the fantastic part either. I went to the Amazon site where this book was sold and looked up information about this author. There's a link to the author's website. I went to his site and saw a section "по-русски" (in Russian) among Home, Biography, Articles & Chapters, and Books. I note that the author is an American teacher from the University of Rhode Island. I go to the "in Russian" section and see in his "comments and publications" the following: "The Tragedy of Ukraine," Solovyov Live, June 29, 2023. Holy shit, he's a guest of SOLOVYOV!!!!
That's why the review is negative. Yes, I agree with some things, but how can I trust the book if I don't trust the sources on which it is based? If the author wants to criticize the Ukrainian government, all his criticism should be based either on Ukrainian media or international media, but not on Russian media.
По делам, по делам –
Повсюду там и тут
Помелом по телам
За пряник или кнут,
Но в одном тут и там
Лишь неизменна константа –
Пропаганда!
Я стараюсь следовать одному правилу при выборе книг о современной Украине: автор должен быть кто угодно, но только не гражданин, который проживает в России или в Украине. Я считаю, что в обоих случаях книга не может быть объективной. Но как показала эта книга, даже следуя этому правилу нужно быть осторожным и тщательно следить за тем, на основании каких источников делает свои выводы автор, а также кем является автор. Это особенно важно, если книга критикует украинское правительство. Вообще, мне нужно быть в этой связи ещё более осторожным, ибо очень тонка грань между конструктивной критикой, основанной на фактах и огульной российской пропагандой. Во втором случаи факты часто искажаются или преувеличиваются. К примеру, такой автор ссылается на факт присутствие право-радикалов на Майдане (факт), но которых было меньшинство. Исходя из данного факта – присутствия радикалов на Майдане – можно сделать два кардинально различных утверждения: "из нескольких тысяч обычных людей, на Майдане также было несколько десятков право-радикалов" и "Майдан был заполнен радикалами (создавая, таким образом, картину, что все участники Майдана были радикалами)". Чувствуете разницу? Один и тот же факт, но подаётся в совершенно разных формах, где одна такая форма является явно искажённой. К чему я это всё? А к тому, что я намеревался поставить этой книге положительную оценку, но потом обнаружил один факт, который полностью перевернул моё отношение к этой книге и этому автору.
С моей точки зрения тема греческой трагедии используется автором сугубо в качестве ширмы, реальной же темой является украинский национализм, приведший сначала к гражданской войне, а после и войне с Россией (так читается книга). Начало мне понравилось, не скрою, ибо я много где встречал претензию украинскому правительству, и в частности к Ющенко, в том что, начиная с 2004 года, украинские власти начали разгонять националистическую риторику. Я согласен с этими претензиями, ибо считаю, что наиважнейшими вопросами, требовавшими скорейшего решения, были вопросы упрочнения демократических институтов и демократии в Украине и вопросы, связанные с коррупцией. Бандера, УПА, Голодомор и прочие националистические темы были явно не к месту. Автор этой книги очень убедительно раскрывает данные вопросы, начиная с темы двух украин и заканчивая националистической моноэтнической риторикой Ющенко, которая, как я отметил выше, была крайне не к месту. Но! Я отметил две украины, так? Автор обозначает их так: the narratives of two distinct Ukrainian identities – Galician and Maloross. Что такое Maloross? Я прочитал много иностранных авторов о современной Украине, но я не помню, чтобы кто-то использовал термин Maloross. Мне кажется корректней использовать термины восточные и западные Украинцы. Но это так, заметка на полях.
Автор вторит многим авторам, пишущим о современной Украине, что западные Украинцы, считаю важным проведение политики полного отрицания всего, что связано с Россией и СССР. Я не буду повторяться, ибо об этом можно прочесть много где. Далее автор обсуждает такие фигуры как Taras Shevchenko and historian Nikolai Kostomarov, которые предлагали конфедерацию на основе Российской Империи:
Its goal was not Ukrainian independence, but the transformation the Russian Empire into a confederation, in which Ukraine would be one of six historical Russian nationalities.
Далее автор приводит в пример другую фигуру – Khmelnitsky. Честно сказать, я так и не понял, что хотел сказать автор. Он пишет, что «He was viewed positively both by those who saw Ukraine as a southern branch of the Russian nation, and by those who favored the idea of a confederation between Ukraine and Russia». К тому же приведённый тезис взят у такого автор как Oles Buzina (спорная и неоднозначная личность). Ещё одна заметка на полях.
Хочу отметить, что до этого момента речь шла об исторических событиях. Т.е. автор проводит явные параллели между тем, что было ещё в Российской Империи (в которую входила тогдашняя Украина) и современными событиями. Главным элементом является Galician and Maloross. Это был мягкий заход в тему. Далее идёт более серьёзный.
According to this narrative, Galicia’s historical separation from the rest of Ukraine, while unfortunate, was also in some ways fortuitous, since it had led the formation of a distinctive language, a distinctive political culture, and an exposure to Catholicism. And since the struggle to establish an independent Ukraine had emerged within the context of the struggle for Galician identity, its ultimate success had become associated with the cultural and political supremacy of Galician norms within Ukraine.
Зафиксировали главную идею? Далее идёт уже тяжёлая артиллерия.
For Galician Ukrainians, by contrast, the central lesson was that there were too many foreign elements within Ukraine undermining its unity of purpose. In 1926 Dmytro Dontsov wrote his most influential work, Nationalism, specifically to identify Russians, Jews, Poles as foreign elements, and to demolish the notion that Ukraine should be tolerant of diversity.
Теперь более заметен посыл, не так ли? Дальше просто огонь из всех орудий.
The ideology of the OUN was an eclectic mix of authoritarian ideas popular in Europe at the time. A leading figure was Mykola Stsiborskyi, who argued for a Ukrainian form of corporativism that borrowed heavily from fascist Italy. The priority for Ukraine, he said, was to create a highly disciplined revolutionary organization capable of establishing a national dictatorship. He imagined that some day such a dictatorship might be replaced by the direct expression of the people’s will, creating what he called a “Ukrainian spiritual totalitarianism.”
<…>
According to Dontsov, the highest form of nationhood is the conqueror nation – a nation that is willing to transform the world in its own image, regardless of the cost. Ukraine must either become a conqueror nation, or suffer extinction. Its unifying national ideal must therefore be to destroy Russia, for only with Russia dismembered and its territories absorbed into Ukraine, can Ukraine achieve true security and greatness.
Ого! Ну, прям план а-ля Барбаросса 2.0. УПА была очень неоднозначной организацией, к которой относятся с большим подозрением практически все. Но радикалы есть в каждом обществе и как я обозначил в самом начале, можно показать, что их меньшинство, на фоне всего населения, а можно представить их в качестве большинства. Действительно, действия Ющенко в отношении УПА и пр. были чистой демагогией в духе того же Трампа. Но автор тоже нечестен с читателем, ибо рисует западных Украинцев как поголовных сторонников Бандеры и пр. И вот это очевидно. Но не это меня заставило изменить своё отношение к книге. А дальше, после того как автор затронул организацию Rukh, где звучит всё тот же звоночек:
As one of the founders of Rukh (the Movement), he saw federalism as the best way to guarantee the individual and cultural rights enshrined in the Ukrainian Constitution.
<…>
What Chornovil actually wanted for Ukraine, however, was a “unity of historical regions along the lines of the federation of lands of the FRG [Federal Republic of Germany].
Когда автор доходит до Майдана и пр., я в какой-то момент решил посмотреть, на что автор постоянно ссылается и увидел просто поразительные источники (типа RT) но среди них всех выделяется один, который появляется практически через каждую пятую страницу. Можно сказать, это основной источник, на котором базируется книги. Это Ukraina (точка) ru. Конечно, иностранные читатели, возможно, не найдут тут подвоха. Но я то, не иностранец! Я зашёл на этот сайт типа как об Украине. Глянул, кто пишет колонки – неизвестные мне лица, которых не больше 3. Язык только русский, что странно, ибо сайт про Украину подразумевает, что если есть русская версия, просто обязана быть и украинская, но её нет. И ниже я понял, почему её не могло быть в принципе. Я увидел кому принадлежит это СМИ - МИА «Россия сегодня»! Но и не это самое фантастическое. Я зашёл на сайт amazon, где продавалась эта книга и глянул информацию про этого автора. Там есть ссылка на сайт автора. Захожу на его сайт и вижу среди Home, Biography, Articles & Chapters, Books раздел «по-русски». Замечу, что автор является американским учителем из University of Rhode Island. Захожу в раздел «по-русски» и вижу в его «комментарии и публикации» следующее: "Трагедия Украины," Соловьёв Live, 29 июня 2023. Мать твою, это гость СОЛОВЬЁВА!!!!
Вот поэтому и оценка отрицательная. Да, с некоторыми вещами я согласен, но как я могу доверять книге, если я не доверяю тем источникам, на которых она базируется? Если автор хочет критиковать правительство Украины, вся его критика должна быть основана либо на украинских СМИ, либо на международных, но никак не на российских.
I try to follow one rule when choosing books about contemporary Ukraine: the author should be anyone but a citizen who lives in Russia or Ukraine. I believe that in both cases, the book cannot be objective. But as this book has shown, even following this rule, one should be careful and scrutinize what sources the author draws his conclusions from, as well as who the author is. This is especially important if the book criticizes the Ukrainian government. In general, I need to be even more careful in this regard because the line between constructive criticism based on facts and sweeping Russian propaganda is very thin. In the latter case, facts are often distorted or exaggerated. For example, such an author refers to the fact that right-wing radicals were present on Maidan (a fact), but they were a minority. Based on this fact - the presence of radicals on the Maidan - we can make two radically different statements: "out of several thousand ordinary people, there were also several dozen right-wing radicals on the Maidan", and "the Maidan was filled with radicals" (thus creating the picture that all Maidan participants were radicals). Do you feel the difference? The same fact yet presented in completely different forms, where one such form is clearly distorted. What's my point? The point is that I intended to give this book a positive evaluation, but then I discovered one fact that completely changed my attitude toward this book and this author.
From my point of view, the theme of the Greek tragedy is used by the author purely as a screen, while the real theme is Ukrainian nationalism, which led first to the civil war and then to the war with Russia (that's how the book reads). I liked the beginning because I have seen many complaints about the Ukrainian government and Yushchenko in particular, that since 2004, the Ukrainian authorities have started to increase nationalist rhetoric. I agree with these claims because I believe that the most important issues that needed to be resolved as soon as possible were the strengthening of democratic institutions and democracy in Ukraine and issues related to corruption. Bandera, UPA, Holodomor, and other nationalistic topics were clearly out of place. The author of this book exposes these issues very convincingly, starting with the topic of two Ukraine and ending with Yushchenko's nationalistic mono-ethnic rhetoric, which, as I noted above, was very out of place. But! I marked two Ukrainians, right? The author labeled them as follows: "the narratives of two distinct Ukrainian identities - Galician and Maloross." What is Maloross? I have read many foreign authors about modern Ukraine, but I don't remember anyone using the term "Maloross." I think it is more correct to use the terms Eastern and Western Ukrainians. But this is just a side note.
The author echoes many authors who write about modern Ukraine that Western Ukrainians consider important to pursue a policy of complete rejection of everything connected with Russia and the USSR. I will not repeat myself because you can read about it in many books. Then, the author discusses such figures as Taras Shevchenko and historian Nikolai Kostomarov, who proposed a confederation on the basis of the Russian Empire:
Its goal was not Ukrainian independence, but the transformation the Russian Empire into a confederation, in which Ukraine would be one of six historical Russian nationalities.
Then, the author cites another figure - Khmelnitsky - as an example. Frankly speaking, I never understood what the author wanted to say. He writes that "He was viewed positively both by those who saw Ukraine as a southern branch of the Russian nation and by those who favored the idea of a confederation between Ukraine and Russia." Besides, the thesis is taken from such authors as Oles Buzina (a controversial and ambiguous person). One more note in the margins.
I would like to note that, up to this point, we have been talking about historical events. That is, the author draws obvious parallels between what was still in the Russian Empire (which included the then Ukraine) and modern events. The main elements are Galician and Maloross. This was a soft approach to the subject. Next comes a more serious one.
According to this narrative, Galicia’s historical separation from the rest of Ukraine, while unfortunate, was also in some ways fortuitous, since it had led the formation of a distinctive language, a distinctive political culture, and an exposure to Catholicism. And since the struggle to establish an independent Ukraine had emerged within the context of the struggle for Galician identity, its ultimate success had become associated with the cultural and political supremacy of Galician norms within Ukraine.
Did you get the main idea? Next comes "the big guns."
For Galician Ukrainians, by contrast, the central lesson was that there were too many foreign elements within Ukraine undermining its unity of purpose. In 1926 Dmytro Dontsov wrote his most influential work, Nationalism, specifically to identify Russians, Jews, Poles as foreign elements, and to demolish the notion that Ukraine should be tolerant of diversity.
The message is more apparent now, isn't it? Then, fire from all the cannons.
The ideology of the OUN was an eclectic mix of authoritarian ideas popular in Europe at the time. A leading figure was Mykola Stsiborskyi, who argued for a Ukrainian form of corporativism that borrowed heavily from fascist Italy. The priority for Ukraine, he said, was to create a highly disciplined revolutionary organization capable of establishing a national dictatorship. He imagined that some day such a dictatorship might be replaced by the direct expression of the people’s will, creating what he called a “Ukrainian spiritual totalitarianism.”
<…>
According to Dontsov, the highest form of nationhood is the conqueror nation – a nation that is willing to transform the world in its own image, regardless of the cost. Ukraine must either become a conqueror nation, or suffer extinction. Its unifying national ideal must therefore be to destroy Russia, for only with Russia dismembered and its territories absorbed into Ukraine, can Ukraine achieve true security and greatness.
Wow! Well, it's like a plan a la Barbarossa 2.0. The UPA was a very controversial organization, which is regarded with great suspicion by almost everyone. But there are radicals in every society, and as I said in the beginning, you can show them as a minority against the background of the whole population, or you can present them as a majority. Indeed, Yushchenko's actions regarding the UPA, etc., were pure demagogy in the spirit of the same Trump. But the author is also dishonest with the reader because he paints Western Ukrainians as all-round supporters of Bandera. And that is obvious. But that's not what made me change my attitude to the book. And further, after the author touched on the Rukh organization:
As one of the founders of Rukh (the Movement), he saw federalism as the best way to guarantee the individual and cultural rights enshrined in the Ukrainian Constitution.
<…>
What Chornovil actually wanted for Ukraine, however, was a “unity of historical regions along the lines of the federation of lands of the FRG [Federal Republic of Germany].
When the author gets to Maidan, etc., at some point, I decided to look at what the author constantly refers to and saw just astonishing sources (like RT), but among them all, one stands out, which appears almost every fifth page. You could say this is the main source on which the book is based. This is "Ukraina (dot) ru". Of course, foreign readers might not find a catch here. But I am not a foreigner! I went to this site as if it were about Ukraine. I looked at who writes the columns - persons unknown to me, no more than 3 of them. The language is only Russian, which is strange because a site about Ukraine implies that if there is a Russian version, there must be a Ukrainian one, but there is none. And below, I realized why it could not be there in principle. I saw who owns this media outlet - the Rossiya Segodnya news agency! But that's not the fantastic part either. I went to the Amazon site where this book was sold and looked up information about this author. There's a link to the author's website. I went to his site and saw a section "по-русски" (in Russian) among Home, Biography, Articles & Chapters, and Books. I note that the author is an American teacher from the University of Rhode Island. I go to the "in Russian" section and see in his "comments and publications" the following: "The Tragedy of Ukraine," Solovyov Live, June 29, 2023. Holy shit, he's a guest of SOLOVYOV!!!!
That's why the review is negative. Yes, I agree with some things, but how can I trust the book if I don't trust the sources on which it is based? If the author wants to criticize the Ukrainian government, all his criticism should be based either on Ukrainian media or international media, but not on Russian media.
April 17, 2023
the obscenity of government bureaucrats: nothing can escape their chance to get a bigger pension plan, and hopefully some morning tv show guest appearances.
June 13, 2023
Another piece of pure ruscist propaganda.
Displaying 1 - 3 of 3 reviews