58
Paul Tereshkovich
The instructions of the actions necessary for national rebirth are expressed as the
inversion of the diagnosis by means of a collective struggle. A distinctive feature of na-
tionalistic rhetoric is that the diagnosis and the instructions are mirror reflections of each
other. As the instructions are in essence the inversion of the diagnosis, any reference to
former sufferings is an implicit appeal to modern actions.
* * *
Ukraine is not Russia
According to Kuchma,
“Eden” is, first of all, Ukraine itself. “I have always clearly heard
the word “eden” (“raj”) in the name “Ukraine”, besides it is the kind of Eden that safely
shelters its inhabitants”. Indeed, “the view of a white walled hut under a four slope straw
roof is, in my opinion, one of the finest sights in the world. Moreover, if there is a cherry
garden near it…”
Eden is also Ukraine in the form of Getmanshchina. “Ukraine” was settled” as Get-
manshchina. It was immeasurably more independent than the USSR. Getmanshchina,
being a key component of history … is the national Ukrainian power with clearly identi-
fied democratic features of the political system and social and economic relations.... The
Ukrainian culture (then) was essentially better than the Russian culture... And even “at the
end of the 18
th
century Ukraine still had the most educated population in the empire”.
However, more beautiful was the idea. Leonid Danilovich understands it. “If what Bogdan
Khmelnitsky had created managed to survive and become a Ukrainian miracle, a new
word in the development of the European statehood, namely, a democratically arranged
power relying on the class of free small farmers-Cossacks, i.e., actually armed farmers, on
peasants-tenants and on free cities … It is really too good to come true.”
“After Eden”
was not too bad either. Leonid Danilovich “is not inclined to demonize
the policy of the tsarist Russia towards Ukrainians, it is seemingly softer than the policy of
France in Provence and Brittany.” “Ukraine cannot be called a colony of Russia,” L. Kuchma
repeatedly emphasizes, “it is a part of the imperial mother country. It is not the lost time.”
Because “a considerable portion of our modern territory … is the grounds taken away by
the Russian empire (hence, by Ukraine too) from the Turkish Ottoman Empire …“
Though, certainly, the empire remains the empire. “Moscow drew away from us, espe-
cially during the post-war years, a number of fine talents.” “This enormous tax in the form
of active people was not specially imposed on Ukraine but it was paid more regularly than
any other.” But it is more likely to be a consequence of Ukrainian talents rather than an
imperialist robbery: “Certainly, all parts of the empire “paid”, but, for some reason, I am
convinced that the relative share of Ukraine exceeded the contribution of others. Ukrai-
nians are born workers … Ukrainians are ambitious, Ukrainians are artistic, Ukrainians are
enterprising.”
59
European Identity as the Horizon of Belarusian Imagination
The main victim of the empire is the Ukrainian language. In 1989 23 % of the popu-
lation of Ukraine did not know the Ukrainian language, including 2 million Ukrainians.
Before the independence “the Ukrainian language was close to a catastrophe condition”.
Now it can be compared to a person weakened by some long illness. At present the Ukrai-
nian language is still not in the best condition. Even now, when the main thing, indepen-
dence,
has been achieved, each next year is the overcoming of the walls.
The belief that the language is the main victim is no accident, though it seemed that
there are many more other problems in Ukraine, and the empire could be presented with
a much more sizeable bill. But the language is a symbol, and Levinger/Lytle state that the
loss of the language is an indicator of more serious losses.
“Heroes”
are, first of all, western Ukrainians. “European mentality of the Ukrainian
people is more evident in Western Ukrainians, it is more specific … there is “respect for a
person”. “Western Ukrainians have it in their blood. They are polite. They are more con-
siderate than us and softer.” They respect legality. Hence, they respect property. “Galicia
nationalists” appear to be much more tolerant than “internationalists” of the East and the
South. All this is the consequence of the European influence. Danylo of Halych was a king,
one of the European kings. Western Ukraine “got into an operative range of Magdeburg
law even before Kiev”.
But the main “advantage (of Western Ukraine) is in conscious Ukrainism … (which)
is a Divine gift”. Western Ukrainians are exclusively faithful to the language and have pro-
tected it from absorption.
Collective heroes are also Cossacks with their mad boldness and their proud indepen-
dence.
Here are the characters, here is the integrity!
Bogdan Khmelnitsky is the main Cossack and protagonist of Leonid Danilovich. L.
Kuchma devotes about 10% of the book to him. Kuchma even reproaches such prophets
of Ukrainism as M. Grushevsky, P. Kulish, and T. Shevchenko because they did not favor
B. Khmelnitsky who presented “our independence to Moscow”. But to no effect. “If T.
Shevchenko had known that the way chosen by the hetman, despite its duration and bur-
dens, all the same would
lead to an independent Ukraine,
he might have found a warmer
word for Borgan.”
L. Kuchma admires the erudition of Khmelnitsky who read Latin texts. He is the au-
thor of the Zborovsky peace treaty with Poland, “as a matter of fact, the first constitution
of Ukraine. At that moment the whole Old World, as well as Russia, recognized the empire
of Khmelnitsky as a separate state formation with its own territory on both banks of the
Dnieper, with clear but not indeterminate borders, with its own army, court, religion, au-
thorities and, it shall be mentioned specifically, with its own language.” As far as the union
with Russia is concerned then “the hetman probably one thousand times considered this
step” and “using some super human feeling Bogdan chose the only correct way”. The het-
man decided to give Ukraine an opportunity to use Russia. … “Not in vain Kostomarov has
said the following words about Khmelnitsky: “What he did is not for decades of years but
for whole centuries. In fact, this is beyond comprehension.” “Could he really expect that