Ukraine 1989: The Blessing of Ignorance

In terms of scope and sophistication, this paper is very modest. That is partly explained by my personal limitations as a historian: even though I am familiar with most of the texts written by political scientists, sociologists and anthropologist on public opinion in late- and post-Soviet Ukraine, I can hardly pretend to be an expert on this subject. It also partly the result of the state of the art. Soviet rule was notorious for its reluctance to hold public opinion polls. The first professional surveys were made only after its collapse, in the early 1990s.[1] As a result, any attempt to discuss public opinion before then is bound to be fragmentary, speculative, and to some extent subjective.

Since my paper is bound to be subjective (but not, I believe, biased), I would like to start with a personal story. Twenty years ago I was a junior research fellow at the Institute of Social Sciences in Lviv, Western Ukraine. It was a strange kind of institution. On one hand, it hosted humanities scholars not sufficiently trusted to teach at the university; on the other hand, it functioned under auspices of the regional communist party committee, as a kind of a think-tank supposed to write analytical reports on various social issues. By the end of 1988, the fellows were granted permission to go abroad for the first time in their lives. After long labours to get a foreign passport, we boarded the bus and in six hours reached our destination… the neighbouring town Przemysl, across the Polish-Ukrainian border.

This story serves as a reminder that in 1989 there was not only the Berlin Wall but another Iron Curtain separating the Soviet Union from the rest of the communist bloc. Judging from the itineraries that communist citizens were allowed to follow, the Soviet republics and the communist satellites of Central Europe were two worlds apart. A telling example is the trajectory of academic contacts. In his article on the impact of the Annales School in Eastern Europe, Krzysztof Pomian provided statistics on fellowships granted to Polish historians in the 1960-1970s: several hundred went to Paris, while only a handful chose Moscow.[2] Until the late 1980s, even the most loyal Soviet Ukrainian historians – who, on average, were very loyal — could barely get permission to go Poland, Hungary or the GDR, and a fellowship to Moscow was considered a hard-won privilege.

The Soviet Ukraine was extremely isolated. It was a kind of Albania the size of France. The isolation affected everyone, including the oppositional camp. Texts of Soviet Ukrainian dissidents were read as if they were written by “intellectual Robinson Crusoes” – without the slightest awareness that the topics they were discussing had generated mountains of scholarly literature in the West.[3] To be sure, isolation from the outside world was a general Soviet tendency. Still, it seems like it was applied differently in different republics, and that Ukraine represented an extreme case.[4] One might risk the generalization that, if the 1989 was “an uneventful revolution”, than it was a non-event in Ukraine. The fall of the Berlin Wall went largely unnoticed, since it had little relevance for Soviet Ukrainians. Within the Soviet Union, in terms of the political ferment brought by perestroika , Ukraine lagged behind Moscow, Leningrad, the Caucasus and the Baltic republics.

Until the autumn of 1989, the local communist party was headed by the hardliner Volodymyr Shcherbytsky. He was the last member of the Brezhnev Politburo to be kept in power by Gorbachev. With Chernobyl (1986) probably the only exception, major Ukrainian issues were conspicuously absent from the official discourses of perestroika.[5] It seemed as though Gorbachev was willingly scarifying perestroika in Ukraine for the sake of political stability in the Soviet Union. In the minds of the Kremlin leaders, Ukraine, the second largest Soviet republic, was prone to deviations, and so it was wiser to keep it at bay.[6]

Their concerns were well founded. The 1989 revolution is sometimes seen as a continuation of 1968.[7] Taking this point as a clue, one has to look into the political developments of 1968. The decision of the Kremlin to repress the Prague Spring had an explicit Ukrainian dimension: it was Soviet Ukrainian leaders who were the most aggressive proponents of military intervention in Czechoslovakia. They were deeply concerned with the “pernicious effects” that the Prague Spring might have on Ukraine. The “nationalist and revisionist elements” that were seen as most responsive to the impact of Czechoslovak basically consisted of two large groups: the Greek Catholics (Uniates) close to the Czechoslovak border in the West, and the Donbass workers in Eastern Ukraine.[8] The developments two decades later confirmed these fears. In 1988-90, Western Ukraine witnessed mass rallies, the emergence of civic organizations, and eventually the rise to power of the anti-communist opposition after the spring 1990 elections. [9] Donbass became the home turf of an independent workers movement. It made its début with mass strikes in July 1989, and by 1990 had completely removed the communists from the management of local mines and factories.[10]

With the sudden shift in the power balance, the communist Ukrainian leadership in the capital Kyiv also swayed towards opposition. The crucial moment was September 1989, when Kyiv witnessed the founding congress of the People’s Movement of Ukraine (Rukh), the first mass opposition organization. A few weeks later Shcherbytsky was removed from power. The new communist leaders opted for a new tactic towards both central power in Moscow and the local opposition: they used the latter to threaten the former and vice versa, thus making themselves indispensable to both. As soon the disintegration of the centre evolved into its collapse (in the summer and autumn of 1991), the Ukrainian communist leadership reached a compromise with the nationalist movement in the West and the workers movement in the East, proclaiming Ukrainian independence in December 1991 – the event that sealed the fate of the Soviet Union. The former Ukrainian communists secured their dominant position. This was reflected, among other thing, by victory of Leonid Kravchuk, the former communist secretary of ideology, in the 1991 presidential elections.

Kravchuk’s interviews and memoirs help trace the mental changes of turncoat communists. As late as the beginning of 1989, they were still performing a modest role as an administrative outpost of the central organization. Their status can be illustrated by a protracted discussion held among members of the local central committee about whether it “pursued” or “implemented” its politics. “Pursue” implied a certain level of independence – which smacked of a disloyalty to the centre – so finally they chose “implement”. Another symbolic expression was the consistent use of Russian by Shcherbytsky. Ironically, Leonid Kravchuk owed his rise to power largely to the fact that, as a native of Western Ukraine, he was the only member of the central committee who could speak Ukrainian. For that reason, he was chosen to lead a public discussion with a group of Ukrainian writers who were striving for an official permission to create the Rukh . Kravchuk entered the discussion with the firm conviction that the communist monopoly should not be challenged at any cost. During the talk, he reportedly told his opponents, extending them his hand, that sooner his palm would get hairy than the Rukh would come into existence. Like other Ukrainian communist leaders, Kravchuk did not believe that perestroika was “serious or for long”. They remembered Khrushchev’s failed de-Stalinization, and were sure that sooner or later the Gorbachev “thaw” would also be reversed. Only after the Rukh, despite all odds, was founded, did the communists come to the conclusion that the status quo was no longer tenable.[11]

If the Ukrainian communist authorities were slow in accommodating to the new reality, then the Rukh leaders on their part were cautious in formulating their agenda. Given the large number of Russians (20% in 1989) and Russian speakers (40-45%) in Ukraine, and the close intertwining of Russian and Ukrainian culture and history, national identity was a much weaker mobilizing force in Ukraine than, say, in the Baltic republics. Besides, any independent activities were viewed by the local communists with great suspicion. The first attempts to create a mass organization modelled after the Lithuanian Sajudis were made in summer 1988. They were, however, ruthlessly suppressed. The Rukh leaders therefore persuaded their opponents that the Rukh was conceived not as an alternative to, but as a support for the Communist Party, so as to deepen perestroika in the Soviet Ukraine. In the same vein, the Rukh leaders distanced themselves from the Baltic model, with its emphasis on national issues. Instead, they focused – at least initially – on social and economic demands. These were primarily ecological issues. Such tactics found a large support among the population, with its recent memory of the Chernobyl disaster (1986). Ecology served, however, as a disguise for national demands, a phenomenon that was later called “eco-nationalism”.[12]

The only issue that had an explicit national dimension was the language question. Together with other public organizations, the Rukh demanded official status for the Ukrainian language – to stop, they claimed, further Russification of Ukraine. Then again, this demand was coated in ecological terms (“to stop a cultural Chernobyl”); moreover, the Rukh made clear that the official status of the Ukrainian language should not be obtained at the cost of other languages spoken in Ukraine.

It is hard to identify whether these statements were made out of sincerity or for tactical considerations: most probably, it was both. The Rukh was an umbrella organization that covered a wide range of opposition, from left to right, from nationalists to liberals. Most of the Rukh‘s leaders identified themselves as national democrats: in their understanding, national and democratic goals were compatible. There were discussions on what was more important for Ukraine: independency or democracy.[13] However these discussions were held privately, never in public. The common understanding was that the more radical the demands, the less chance of rallying mass support. Even a more hard-line organization that emerged at that time from former Ukrainian political prisoners – the Ukrainian Helsinki Association (UHS) – restrained from proclaiming Ukrainian independence as its ultimate political goal. Instead, it proposed the transformation of the USSR into a confederation of republics.

Such a cautious approach reflected the general mood in Ukraine. A survey made in autumn 1989 revealed that, on one hand, Ukrainians were more sensitive to national issues than Russians; on other hand, however, that this sensitivity was a far cry from the central role these issues featured in the Baltic republics or Armenia. Ukrainians preferred economic independence over political independence, and their support for preservation of the USSR was fairly strong (see table). The only exception was Western Ukraine, where, very much like in Baltics, national issues were considered the most salient, and support for political independence was rising.[14]

Table: “Those who wish their own people well should first of all…”

  Armenia Baltics Russia Ukraine
…care about the unity and integrity of the Soviet Union 10.6% 10.2% 63.4% 30.9%
…demand both a strong centre and strong republics 4.8% 9.6% 19.5% 17.2%
…focus all their efforts on the preservation of the native language and culture 52.9% 25.6% 8.8% 20.6%
…demand the economic independence of their republic 26.0% 43.5% 14.8% 32.4%
…demand the political independence of their republic, up to the point of its separation from the USSR 17.0% 47.0% 9.9% 20.6%
…hard to tell 1.9% 2.9% 7.5% 4.3%

Source: ??????, 1989, N 43.

With the further polarization of the political landscape, the Rukh became more outspoken, and during its second congress (October 1990) proclaimed the political independence of Ukraine as its main goal. Before that – and, to a large extent, afterwards – it was an amorphous organization with an ambivalent programme. As one of its heads, Ivan Drach, admitted in 1989, one half of the Rukh programme was copied from the Communist Party, the other from the Ukrainian Helsinki Association.[15] A political analyst identified the Rukh’s stance as “half-support/half-opposition”; an “eternal lack of determination and notorious multi-vector politics that left no room for an intelligible answer to the questions: what are we fighting for and what do we really want?”[16]

Donbass workers — the third major actor in the Ukrainian 1989 political scene – did not demonstrate much resoluteness, either. Their leaders participated in the founding congress of the Rukh – but their speeches acted as a dampener on the heated enthusiasm of the gathering: they claimed the Rukh did not cover the problems that were of real concern in Donbass, and that this would alienate workers from the national opposition.[17] While the worker leaders knew what they did not want – and this was the Rukh ’s focus on the national issue – they were less sure what they did want. During the mass strike in summer 1989, they came up with a package of demands that, in the words of one of them, “would be ridiculous to discuss in a civilized society, demands about providing more soap… [T]he only point necessary and worth anything was a paragraph demanding full autonomy for enterprises.” When asked about models of social and economic development, workers cited both Japan and Sweden, as if they were comparable. A year after the strike of summer 1989, the demands of the workers movement evolved from the strictly economic to the political. The latter included the sovereignty of Ukraine. Yet this demand had social rather national underpinnings: worker leaders understood that in a state as big as the USSR, it was impossible to administer all regions from one place; hence it would make more sense to fix Soviet Ukraine’s economy – and everything else – to its territory.[18]

The statements and revelations of the major actors of 1989 – defected communists and oppositional Rukh and worker leaders – represented, in accentuated forms, the ways thinking of large segments of the Ukrainian population. It would be dangerous, however, to generalize from them in order to reconstruct public opinion at that time. The only sound generalization that can be made is that the high degree of ambivalence characteristic of the political actors of 1989 represented, mutatis mutandis, a general mood, as was confirmed by surveys in early 1990s. As a Ukrainian social scientist put it: in Ukraine, “someone in an ambivalent state of mind, while mentally sound, may simultaneously opt for a multi-party system over ‘newly-baked’ parties, for both freedom of movement and border restrictions, for a larger market economy and state regulation of prices, […] for the independence of his or her nation and the restoration of the Soviet Union.”[19] There is a rule of thumb in Ukrainian politics that the more articulated a political position, the less popular support it is likely to get; and, conversely, that ambivalence pays with political success. Since this pattern of public opinion proved very persistent until the end of 1990s,[20] it can with relative certainty be projected back to 1989.

It is interesting to observe the wording of the opposite poles of public opinion. At one end of the spectrum there was a “ system”, or, as one Donbass worker leader put it, “the bureaucratic dictatorial system, created by […] the communist party […]. Everyone has long understood that it is dangerous, that it destroys the people and the country.”[21] Judging by the 1989 interviews, for many the “system” had lost its legitimacy. The main reason for this was its failure to provide people with decent living standards – or, even worse, to provide these standards only for “selected” people, i.e. the party elite (nomenklatura). Certainly, in the USSR there were always some segments of population that did not share the basic tenants of the Soviet system. Still, before 1985 they made up a minority. The majority believed that faults in the system were isolated shortcomings that could be amended. This was no longer so in 1989. By then, the defects were so numerous that, in the eyes of many, they constituted an entire “system” that had to be removed. This change of attitudes largely came as an effect of glasnost, with its numerous revelations about the Soviet past and the Soviet present.[22]

The opposite to the “system” was “normalcy”, or “normal civilized society”. More often than not, “normalcy” was conceived as congruent with “the West”, as the embodiment of “normal”, “modern”, “civilized” life. The celebration of the western standards was universal. It is easily discerned from countless statements from a broad range people – Rukh leaders, workers, managers, intellectuals, businesspeople, and communists. Even Shcherbytskyi (who was a chain smoker) reportedly smoked only exquisite US cigarettes.[23] Needless to say, the image of the West was highly idealized. Ironically, it was created to a large extent by Soviet propaganda. The overtly anti-western accounts of the West in the Soviet media provoked a persistent counter-bias. Moreover, as analysts noted, “the sources of most of the information coming from the West complicated the reluctance of Ukrainians to establish a critical perspective on western media. Television, advertisements for western products, pirated videos, religious proselytizers, and Ukrainian emigrants returning for a visit to the homeland – the most visible representatives of America – have tended to crowd out or mute critical voices.”[24] This ignorance turned out to be a blessing. Surveys on political culture made in Russia and Ukraine in 1989-1992 revealed a solid commitment to democratic values that was not strikingly different from what could be found in industrial western democracies. One explanation was that majority of (former) Soviet citizens identified western political standards with western standards of living.[25]

Although by the end of 1980s there seemed to be a broad understanding that the “system” had failed, there was no clear understanding on how to attain “normalcy”. The programmes of the Rukh, as well as those of the first political parties in 1990, were conspicuously tacit on that issue; at best, they confined themselves to general and rather vague statements that could be reduced to three points: Ukrainian sovereignty, market economy and social security.[26] Their rhetoric was very much socialist – little wonder given the fact the ideal of “socialism with human face” was very popular at that time. The “system” was treated not as an implementation of Marxism, but rather as its crude “Stalinist” aberration. “Socialism with a human face” was identified either as the “Swedish model” (obviously, the social costs were not mentioned) or the Soviet new economic policies of 1920s. In the latter case, socialism with a human face could be explained as a “return to Leninist norms”. In the same vein, national demands were styled as the “return of Leninist national politics”. Characteristically, a leaflet distributed during the founding congress of the Rukh in 1989 showed Lenin dressed as a Ukrainian Cossack. On the other hand, a survey among readers of the most popular newspapers revealed an evident “drift towards capitalism”, with demands for a free market and a return to private property ownership, including land privatization. While any general balance between supporters and opponents of capitalism was hard to identify, the number of supporters for capitalism tended to be higher among the younger generation than older, among Ukrainian speakers than Russian speakers, and among Western than Eastern Ukrainians. There were, of course, many who were undecided and ambivalent.[27]

There was a general romantic mood about fast and positive developments. It was believed that it was important to take the first steps, after which changes would follow their own course. This mood was mirrored by widely held expectations about the miracle about to happen. The talk of the town was a “500-day programme of transition to a market economy”, suggested in 1990 in Moscow by Gregorii Iavlinskii and Stanislav Shatalin. The Ukrainian equivalent was the 1990 parliamentary discussions on the Cossack treasure, allegedly clandestinely placed by hetman Polubotko in 1723 in the Bank of England, for the future Ukrainian state. Some Ukrainian MPs claimed – and quite seriously so – that if the treasure were to be found, that every citizen of Ukraine would get 300.000 British Pounds.[28] Ironically, a similar role was played by an analysis by Deutsche Bank (1991) that claimed that among all the Soviet republics, Ukraine had the best chances of self-sufficient economic development. This prediction was disseminated in numerous leaflets before the referendum on Ukrainian independence in 1991, and was partly responsible for the high support for Ukrainian separatism (90%).[29] A naïve trust in such mystifications and miscalculations was the reverse side of the widely held hope that Ukrainian sovereignty would bring miraculous and immediate results. These exaggerated expectations blocked readiness to face the unavoidable economic problems that followed the break up of the Soviet Union.[30]

Naïve economic expectations were accompanied by overwhelming fears that political developments might lead to an explosion of violence. These fears had two sources. The first was a belief that the system would hit back, leading to mass repressions. As a matter of fact, these concerns were not groundless: among the documents revealed in the wake of the August 1991 coup, there was a long list of Ukrainian politicians and civic leaders who were to be arrested. Another source was a premonition of anti-Russian and anti-Jewish pogroms in Ukraine. In 1990, the Union Ministry of Interior Affairs and official newspapers issued warnings about imminent ethnic violence in large Ukrainian cities (Kharkiv, Kyiv and Lviv), incited by Rukh.[31] Luckily, these rumours proved false. Still, fears did not fade so easily. There were also fears of civil war breaking out in Yugoslav style (as a matter of fact, comparisons of the rivalry between Western and Eastern Ukrainian with Serbian-Croatian antagonism can be traced back as far as beginning of the twentieth century). At the end of 1993, the CIA came up with a prognosis about a possible break up of Ukraine along ethnic, political and regional lines, that would lead to a civil war between Western and Eastern Ukraine.[32] The 1994 presidential elections came very close to this prediction: political antagonism between the two rival candidates had an explicit ethno-linguistic dimension. The deep split between the “Catholic” West and the “Orthodox” East amounted to what Samuel Huntington called the clash of civilizations. For Huntington, Ukraine served as a classic example of a “cleft country”.[33] This image has dogged Ukraine since then, and is largely corroborated by later political developments, including the 2004 Orange Revolution.

And yet, Ukraine is shaking but not breaking. It has proved to be a relatively stable political community with a low level of inter-ethnic conflict and violence compared to other post-Soviet countries.[34] Moreover, Ukraine is the only country of the former USSR outside the Baltics qualified by the Freedom House as “free”.[35] In the words of one Russian political analyst, “ Ukraine passed an exam on democracy that we [Russians] really failed […]. The fact that Ukraine did so against a backdrop of terrible economic hardships […] only increases Ukrainian merits (the exam was passed on an ’empty stomach’).”[36]

This presents an obvious paradox: how did a country with such a potential for conflict manage a relatively smooth transition from communism to democracy? To be sure, there is more than one answer to that question. Still, one of them, I believe, is rooted in a characteristic of expectations in 1989: a peculiar mixture of imposed ignorance, exaggerated hopes, and realistic fears that made elites compromise rather than escalate tension. All three major political actors of 1989 disappeared from the Ukrainian political landscape long ago, displaced by or dissolved in new parties and fractions. Still, the spirit of compromise lingers. The post-communist history of Ukraine could be presented in a nutshell as a long line of deep political and economic crisis, each concluded by a compromise. The real problem is that most of these compromises have been of a strictly tactical character.[37]

What Ukraine badly needs is a compromise of strategic character around identity issues, such as the status of the Russian language, outward orientation and historical memory. But against the background of ambivalence that has characterized the public mood since the late 1980s, one wonders whether any attempts “to make things clear” would not destabilize the Ukrainian situation even further.[38]


1. There were some attempts to conduct surveys in Ukraine in 1989, e.g. Valentin Sazhin, “ Attitudes towards gypsies in Ukraine (1989), Nationalities Papers , 19 , 3 (Winter 1991), pp. 337-357; see also below. However these were very occasional, politically motivated and amateurish; at best, they were representative of some segments of population. Regular monitoring of public opinion began in 1992; see: ? ???????? ., ? ?????? , ???., ?????????? ??????????? 1992-2008: ????????????? ??????????   (????, 2008).

2. Krzysztof Pomian, “Impact of the Annales School in Eastern Europe: Review”, Journal of the Ferdinand Braudel Center, 2 (1978), p. 117.

3. See: Ivan L. Rudnytsky, “The Political Thought of Soviet Ukrainian Dissidents”, in his Essays in Modern Ukrainian History ( Edmonton, 1987), p. 486.

4. This is a conclusion, drawn from a comparative study of historical memory in the post-war Soviet Union: Zvi Gitelman, “Soviet Reactions to the Holocaust, 1945-1991”, in: L.Dobroszycki, J.S. Gurock, The Holocaust in the Soviet Union. Studies and Sources on the Destruction of the Jews in the Nazi-Occupied Territories of the USSR, 1941-1945 (Armonk, N.Y: 1993), p. 3, 9-11.

5. This could be well illustrated by an example of Moscow-based journal Ogoniok, which stood in the forefront of glasnost. Even though it was edited by Yuri Korotych (Korotich), a Ukrainian poet who in the 1960s participated in the Ukrainian non-conformist movement shestydesiatnyky (sixties), specifically Ukrainian topics (such as the famine of 1932-33, the repressions of Ukrainian intelligentsia in 1920s and 1970s, the liquidation of Ukrainian Greek Catholic church) did not feature in it.

6. Pavel Palazcehko, My Years with Gorbachev and Shevarnadze. The Memoir of a Soviet Interpreter (University Park, PA,1997), p. 302.

7. Giovanni Arrighi, Terens K. Hopkins, Immanuel Wallersein, “1989: Continuation of 1968”, in George N. Katsiaficas (Ed.). After the Fall: 1989 and the Future of Freedom (NewYork, London, 2001), pp. 35-51.

8. Michael Kramer, “ Ukraine and the Soviet-Czechoslovak Crisis of 1968 (Part 1): The Diaries of Petro Shelest”, in Cold War International History Project Bulletin 10 (1998) pp. 234-47; “ Ukraine and the Soviet-Czechoslovak Crisis of 1968 (Part 2): New Evidence from the Ukrainian Archives”, available at http://www.wilsoncenter.org/topics/pubs/ukraine.pdf,

9. See .: ?. ?????, ?. ????????, “ ??????? ???????????? (????? ? 1988–1996 ??.) ” , ?. ???????, ?. ???????, ?. ??????, ???. ?????. ????????? ?????? (?????, 1996), pp . 543 – 611; D . Zlepko ,” Aufbruch unter Blau – Gelb . Der Wandel von sowjetischen zum ukrainischen Lemberg“, in P . F äß ler , T . Held , D . Sawitzki , eds., Lemberg – Lw ó w – L’viv . Eine Stadt im Schnittpunkt europ ä ischer Kulturen ( K ö ln – Weimar – Wien , 1993), p p . 167 – 206.

10. ?.??????????, “ ?????????? ??? ? ??????????? ????????? 1989–1991 ??. ” , ? ??..: ?. ???????, ?. ??????, ???.. ?????? ??????????? ??????? ???????????. ?????, 22– 28 ?????? 1993. ???????? ? ????????????. ??????? . ?. ??. (?????, 1994), pp . 149 – 154.

11. ???????? ???????, ?????????. ?????-???. ????: ??????????? ?? «??????», 1994, pp . 129-130, 140, 145, 156, 159.

12. For statistics that reflected hierarchy of demands see : ?.?. ?????????????, ?.?. ?????????, ?.?. ?????, “????? ??????? ???????????? ???????? ? ????????????? ????????”, ??????????? ? ???????????? ?????, 1992, nr. 1, p. 10. On importance of the Chernobyl issue for mass mobilization see: ?.????????, ” ???? ??????????? ????? ?? ???????????? ???????. ??????????????? ?? ???????????? ??????? ” , ??????????, 1992, nr. 8, p . 149; Jane I . Dawson , Eco – Nationalism : Anti – Nuclear Activism and National Identity in Russia , Lithuania , and Ukraine ( Durham, NC, 1996).

13. ????? ????? , “ ????????-?????????? ??????????? ?????????“, ???? ????? ?????? 4 ?????? 2009 ?., http://www.pravda.com.ua/news/2009/4/8/92909.htm

14. Arthur H. Miller, Thomas F. Klobucar, William M.Reisinger, and Vicki L.Hesli, “Social Identities in Russia, Ukraine and Lithuania”, Post-Soviet Affairs 14, 3 (1998) , pp. 248-286.

15. Quoted from : ?.?.??????, ????? ???????. ? ??????? ???? ?? ????? ?????? ??????? (????, 1993), pp. 55.

16. ?????? ????????, ??? ? ??????????: ??????? ?????????? ???????, ??????? ??????nr. 36 (257) 11 — 17 ???????? 1999 ( http://www.zn.ua/1000/23127/ ). Nothing better illustrates this ambivalence than discussion on foreign orientation among the Rukh’s leaders: Ivan Zaiets saw future of Ukraine in NATO and united Europe, while Viktor Stratienko stood for integration with the Soviet republics; Dmytrii Chobit saw a military threat emanating from Poland, Oleksa Hudyma – from the US, Valentyn Protsenko – from China; all the three agreed, however, that Russia represented the main threat (ibid.)

17. ??????, ????? ??????? , c.50-51. Tellingly, their emphasis on social demands found support from Adam Michnik, the only foreign guest at the founding Rukh congress (ibid).

18. Lewis H.Siegelbaum, Daniel J. Walkowitz, eds, Workers of the Donbass Speak. Survival and Identity in the New Ukraine, 1989-1992 (New York, 1995), p p. 108, 120, 179.

19. E. I. Golovakha, “Postkommunisticheskoe razvitiye Ukrainy i Rossii (sravnitel’nyi analiz sotsial’no-politiceskikh protsesov),” T. I. Zaslavskaja, ed., Kuda idet Rossia?… Sotsial’naia transformatsiia postsovetskogo prostranstva 3 ( Moscow, 1996), p. 51.

20. See e.g., Valerii Khmelko,”Ukraina tiazhiie do livoho tsentru. Prynaimni polovyna nashykh spivvitchyznykivvoliie duzhe sotsialnoho kapitalizmu i nezalezhnosti v druzhbi z Rosiieiu”, Den, N 141 (12 serpnia 1997), p. 4 .

21. Workers of the Donbass Speak , p. 119.

22. Stephen Kotkin, Armageddon Averted. The Soviet Collapse, 1970-2000 ( Oxford, New York: Oxford University Press, 2001), p p . 68-71

23. ???????, ????????? , pp. 130, 148, 164,169;

24. Workers of the Donbass Speak , p. 179.

25. James L. Gibson. “The Resilience of Mass Support for Democratic Institutions and Processes in the Nascent Russian and Ukrainian Democracies”, in Vladimir Tismaneanu (ed.), Political Culture and Civil Society in Russia and the New States of Eurasia(New York, London, 1995), p. 53-111.

26. ?.?. ??????, ???. ??????? ??????????????. ????????? ????????? ????? ?????? (????, 1991).

27. ?.?. ??????, ” ?????? ????? ” , http://www.icfcst.kiev.ua/AMOSOV/voices6-7_u.html.

28. See: Karel E. Berkhoff. “Brothers, We Are All of Cossack Stock”: The Cossack Campaign of Ukrainian Newspapers on the Eve of Independence // Harvard Ukrainian Studies. 1997. Vol. XXI. nr. 1-2 , pp. 119-140.; S. Yekelchyk. Cossack gold: History, Myth and the Dream of Prosperity in the Age of Post-soviet Transition // Canadian Slavonic papers. 1998. Sept-Dec. ( http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3763/is_199809/ai_n8826020 )

29. Corbet, Michael, and Andreas Gummich, The Soviet Union at the Crossroads : Facts and Figures on the Soviet Republics ( Frankfurt: Deutsche Bank, 1991).

30. ?????? ???????, «?????????? ? ???????? ??-????????? (??????? ?? ???????????? ??????? ???????????-???????????? ??????? ? ????????????? ???????)», Ab Imperio. 2007. nr. 3.

31. ??????, ????? ???????, pp. 82-83.

32. Williams D. and Smith R.J. .”U.S. Intelligence Sees Economic Flight Leading to Break-up of Ukraine”, Washington Post, January 25, 1994.

33. Samuel P Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order ( New York, 1996 ) , pp. 165 – 168.

34. Jose Casanova,”Ethno-linguistic and Religious Pluralism and Democratic Construction in Ukraine”, in Bernett R. Robin, Jack L.Snyder, (eds). Post-Soviet Political Order. Conflict and State Building (New York, 1998), 81-103. William Zimmerman, “Is Ukraine a Political Community ? ”, in Communist and Post – Communist Studies , 31 . 1 (1998), pp. 43–55.

35. “Freedom in the World Comparative and Historical Data”, http://www.freedomhouse.org/template.cfm?page=439: “Map of Freedom: Central and Eastern Europe/Former Soviet Union”, http://www.freedomhouse.org/uploads/fiw09/MOF09_CEE-FSU_FINAL.pdf.

36. ?.??????, ” ??????? ? ??. ???????????? ?????????? ? ???????????? ???????? “, ????????? ????? . 1995. nr. 1 , p. 70.

37. This is the point I tried to develop in my: “Co po Giedrojciu?”, in Jerzy Giedroyc: kultura – polityka – wiek XX (Warsaw, forthcoming).

38. According to the most recent survey, the number of people in Ukraine who stand for a reconciliation over historical memory dropped from a majority in April 2003 (65%) to a relative minority (46%) in April 2009. The good news is that it still remains the largest group – see: http://www.uceps.org/ukr/poll.php?poll_id=454 .

 

Copyright © 2010 by the author & Tr@nsit online.
All rights reserved. This work may be used, with this header included, for noncommercial purposes. No copies of this work may be distributed electronically, in whole or in part, without written permission from Transit.

Tags:

Related Content

  • Die Idee des Intermariums: Ein mittelosteuropäischer Pakt gegen russischen Neoimperialismus

    Die Sicherheitsinteressen Zwischeneuropas und vor allem der Ukraine verlangen nach einem Intermarium-Block – einer Koalition der Staaten zwischen Ostsee und Schwarzem Meer.
    Read more

  • The Warsaw NATO Summit and beyond

    Obama’s criticism and the embarrassing act of censorship of his speech notwithstanding, the NATO Warsaw Summit proved on balance to be successful for Poland’s foreign policy goals, as well as those of NATO’s other Eastern Allies, as they have managed to secure NATO’s increased presence on the Eastern flanks as part of a defence against, and a deterrent to, Putin’s Russia. Nevertheless, with the UK gradually losing its influence following the Brexit referendum and most likely leaving the EU within a few years, Poland and NATO’s Eastern Allies are losing an important ally that provided significant political support for these countries in the EU and NATO. Law and Justice may also face growing isolation on the European level, especially if it does not find an acceptable solution for the constitutional crisis and continues questionable practices in the media sphere.
    Read more

  • Between ‘the Russian World’ and ‘the Ukrainian Nation’: Kyiv Pride before and after Euromaidan

    Ukrainian LGBT movement is the logical product of the Ukrainian social, economical, and political context. For queer politics to appear in Ukraine, different conditions and possibilities have to be created. It will take years for currently isolated queer activists to rearticulate the existing heteronormative order through many scattered tactical interventions into the public sphere.
    Read more

  • Self-Reflection Through the Visual: Notes on Some Maidan Documentaries

    On a formal level, the images win a subjectivity of their own, in a similar way to the people -- the main protagonist of all the abovementioned films -- who gain their political subjectivity during the course of revolutionary struggle. If there is any universal truth about Maidan, then it can be articulated like this: people with their own hands, their own efforts and will ousted the oppressive political regime from power.
    Read more

  • Student Protest as the Trigger for the Revolution of Dignity in Ukraine

    By now it has been nearly forgotten how the events started that led to Yanukovych relinquishing power. Nevertheless, it was exactly on the grassroots level that some of the most interesting developments took place such as the appearance of a student protests movement which became crucial for the Euromaidan movement and whose fate paradoxically directly triggered the Revolution.
    Read more

  • Declaration of the School of Kyiv – Kyiv Biennial 2015

    The School of Kyiv is a newly invented biennial subject that chose the model of forum as its method of functioning and interacting. The Kyiv biennial has a clear political intention reflected in its social and artistic structure and channeled through its educational form. This is what binds biennial, school, and Kyiv to the intersecting triad of art, knowledge, and politics.
    Read more

  • When Empires Collapse – Reflections on the Crisis in Ukraine

    Despite the many obvious differences, the current turmoil in the Middle East and the Ukrainian crisis have something in common: both reflect the problematic legacies left behind when centuries-old empires collapse and the successor states appear less stable and viable than originally imagined.
    Read more

  • Ein Historiker im “Information-War”: Karl Schlögel im Interview

    Die russische Annexion der Krim und der "unerklärte Krieg" in der Ukraine haben selbst Experten überrascht. So auch den Historiker und Russland-Kenner Karl Schlögel. Der russische Präsident Wladimir Putin verfolge heute eine völkische Politik, die an das "Dritte Reich" erinnert, sagte er in einem Interview.
    Read more

  • The Ukrainian School of War

    The ongoing turmoil in Ukraine has frequently been compared to the Yugoslav crisis of the early 1990s – and, indeed, there are many similarities. But, when it comes to understanding why the conflict between Ukraine's government and Russian-backed separatists has persisted – and why, after a year of increasingly brutal fighting, a resolution seems so remote – the differences are far more important.
    Read more

  • A Deadly Game of Hide-and-Seek: Why a Diplomatic Solution in Russia/Ukraine War is Nowhere in Sight

    When Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov emerged after negotiations in Berlin on January 21, he had a simple message for the media: there may be thousands of people killed in the ongoing war in Ukraine, but you have no proof that it is done by Russian troops or Russian weapons.
    Read more

Tr@nsit Online Authors

  • Bradley F. Abrams

    History, Stanford University
    Read more

  • Thomas Ahbe

    Thomas Ahbe studierte Philosophie, Ökonomie und Soziologie. Seit 1998 wirkt er freischaffend als Sozialwissenschaftler und Publizist. Seine Arbeitsschwerpunkte sind Diskurs- und Kulturgeschichte der deutschen Zweistaatlichkeit und der ostdeutschen Transformation sowie die Generationengeschichte der DDR und Ostdeutschlands.   Print

  • Karl Aiginger

    Karl Aiginger is Director of WIFO (Österreichisches Institut für Wirtschaftsforschung), Professor of Economics and Coordinator of the project A new growth path for Europe within the 7th European Framework Program.   Print

  • Huercan Asli Aksoy

    Ph.D. candidate in Political Science, University of Tübingen
    Read more

  • Sorin Antohi

    Sorin Antohi is Professor of History at Central European University, Budapest.   Print

  • Timothy Garton Ash

    History, Oxford
    Read more

  • Roumen Avramov

    Program director for economic research at the Center for Liberal Strategies, Sofia
    Read more

  • Adam Baczko

    PhD Candidate in Political Science, EHESS, Paris
    Read more

  • Pavel Barsa

    Associate Professor of Political Science, Charles University Prague
    Read more

  • Rainer Bauböck

    Rainer Bauböck is professor of social and political theory at the European University Institute in Florence. In 2006 he was awarded the Latsis Prize of the European Science Foundation for his work on immigration and social cohesion in modern societies. Among his many publications are Immigration and Boundaries of Citizenship (1992), Transnational Citizenship: Membership and …
    Read more

  • Steven Beller

    Geschichte, Cambridge
    Read more

  • Naja Bentzen

    Freelance journalist, Wien
    Read more

  • Luiza Bialasiewicz

    Jean Monnet Professor of EU External Relations, University of Amsterdam
    Read more

  • Muriel Blaive

    Muriel Blaive ist seit 2012 Institutskoordinatorin des Ludwig Boltzmann Instituts für Europäische Geschichte und Öffentlichkeit.   Print

  • Andras Bozoki

    Sociology, Budapest
    Read more

  • José Casanova

    Professor für Soziologie, New School for Social Research, New York
    Read more

  • Daniel Chirot

    Soziologie, Seattle
    Read more

  • Robert Cooper

    Robert Cooper ist britischer Diplomat und derzeit als Sonderberater des Europäischen Auswärtigen Dienstes (European External Action Service, EEAS) tätig. Er ist zudem Gründungsmitglied des European Council on Foreign Relations (ECFR).   Print

  • Peter Demetz

    Sterling Professor Emeritus of German and Comparative Literature, Yale University; Korrespondierendes Mitglied des IWM
    Read more

  • James Dodd

    Associate Professor of Philosophy, New School for Social Research, New York
    Read more

  • Martin Endreß

    Martin Endreß ist Professor für Soziologie an der Universität Trier.   Print

  • Mischa Gabowitsch

    Mischa Gabowitsch (gabowitsch.net) is a research fellow at the Einstein Forum in Potsdam. He is the author of Putin kaputt!? (Suhrkamp, 2013), a study of the 2011-13 Russian protests for fair elections, and maintains protestrussia.net, which collects academic resources for the study of protest in Russia.   Print

  • Charles Gati

    Charles Gati is Senior Acting Director of Russian and Eurasian Studies and Foreign Policy Institute Senior Fellow at the School of Advanced International Studies at the Johns Hopkins University, Washington, D.C.     Print

  • Dessy Gavrilova

    Dessy Gavrilova is the founding Director of The Red House – Center for Culture and Debate in Sofia, Bulgaria.     Print

  • Keith Gessen

    Keith Gessen is a freelance writer living in Cambridge, MA.   Print

  • Gerhard Gnauck

    Warsaw correspondent for Die Welt
    Read more

  • Katya Gorchinskaya

    Managing Editor for Investigative Programming, Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty (REF/RL), Kyiv
    Read more

  • John Gray

    John Gray is Professor of European Thought at the London School of Economics.   Print

  • Rainer Gries

    Rainer Gries lehrt und forscht als Universitätsprofessor am Historischen Institut der Friedrich-Schiller-Universität Jena, am Institut für Publizistik- und Kommunikationswissenschaft der Universität Wien sowie an der Sigmund Freud PrivatUniversität Wien. Zu seinen Forschungsschwerpuntken zählen u.a. die Gesellschaftsgeschichte Deutschlands und Österreichs im 20. Jahrhundert und die Geschichte des Konsums in Europa.   Print

  • Eva Hahn

    Geschichte
    Read more

  • Gábor Halmai

    Professor of Law, Department of European Studies; Eötvös Loránd University, Budapest
    Read more

  • Elemer Hankiss

    Professor für Politikwissenschaft, Eötvös Lorand Universität, Budapest; Korrespondierendes Mitglied des IWM
    Read more

  • Miklós Haraszti

    Miklós Haraszti is a writer, journalist, human rights advocate and university professor. He served the maximum of two terms as the OSCE Representative on Freedom of the Media from 2004 to 2010. Currently he is Adjunct Professor at the School of International and Public Affairs of Columbia Law School, New York. Haraszti studied philosophy and …
    Read more

  • Sabine Hark

    Sabine Hark forscht an der Wirtschafts- und Sozialwissenschaftlichen Fakultät der Universität Potsdam, Professur für Frauenforschung.   Print

  • Annemieke Hendriks

    Freelance journalist, Berlin
    Read more

  • Charles Hirschman

    Charles Hirschman is Boeing International Professor at the Department of Sociology and the Daniel J. Evans School of Public Affairs, Washington University.     Print

  • Jennifer L. Hochschild

    Jennifer L. Hochschild is Professor of Government at the John F. Kennedy School of Government, and Professor of African and African-American Studies at the Faculty of Arts and Sciences, Harvard University.   Print

  • Yaroslav Hrytsak

    History, Central European University Budapest
    Read more

  • Richard Hyman

    Richard Hyman ist Professor für Politikwissenschaft an der London School of Economics.   Print

  • Vladislav Inozemtsev

    Professor of Economics at Higher School of Economics; Director, Centre for Post-Industrial Studies, Moscow
    Read more

  • Bruce P. Jackson

    Bruce P. Jackson is the founder and President of the Project on Transitional Democracies. The Project is a multi-year endeavour aimed at accelerating the pace of reform in post-1989 democracies and advancing the date for the integration of these democracies into the institutions of the Euro-Atlantic. Jackson has written extensively about the engagement of Russia …
    Read more

  • Tom Junes

    Visiting Researcher, Warsaw University, and Visiting Lecturer in Polish history, KULeuven, Belgium
    Read more

  • Alex J. Kay

    Alex J. Kay holds a PhD in History from the Humboldt University Berlin.   Print

  • Anatoly M. Khazanov

    Anatoly M. Khazanov ist Professor für Anthropologie an der University of Wisconsin, Madison.   Print

  • Cornelia Klinger

    Professor of Philosophy, University of Tübingen
    Read more

  • Gudrun-Axeli Knapp

    Professor of Social Sciences and Social Psychology, University of Hannover
    Read more

  • Jacek Kochanowicz

    Jacek Kochanowicz is Professor for Economic History at Warsaw University.       Print

  • Michal Kopecek

    International Relations, Charles University Prague
    Read more

  • János Kornai

    János Kornai is Prof. em. for Economics  at Harvard University and Permanent Fellow at the Collegium Budapest – Institute for Advanced Study. He is a member of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences and the Academia Europeae, and Foreign Member of the American, British, Bulgarian, Finnish, Russian and Swedish Academies. He has served as President of …
    Read more

  • Pavel Kouba

    Professor für Philosophie an der Karlsuniversität, Prag; Leiter des Zentrums für Phänomenologische Forschung an der Tschechischen Akademie der Wissenschaften
    Read more

  • János Mátyás Kovács

    IWM Permanent Fellow
    Lecturer, Department of Economics, Eötvös Lorand University, Budapest
    Read more

  • Ivan Krastev

    IWM Permanent Fellow
    Chair of the Board, Centre for Liberal Strategies, Sofia
    Read more

  • Yustyna Kravchuk

    PhD candidate in Film and Media Studies, National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine, Kyiv
    Read more

  • Jacek Kucharczyk

    Jacek Kucharczyk ist Head of Programs am Institute of Public Affairs in Warschau.   Print

  • Aleksander Kwasniewski

    Aleksander Kwasniewski war Präsident Polens. Seine Amtszeit verlief von 1995 bis 2005 über zwei Legislaturperioden.   Print

  • Mladen Lazic

    Professor of Sociology, University of Belgrade
    Read more

  • Claus Leggewie

    Professor für Politikwissenschaft, Justus-Liebig-Universität Giessen
    Read more

  • André Liebich

    Honorary Professor of International History and Politics, Graduate Institute, Geneva
    Read more

  • Burkhard Liebsch

    Burkhard Liebsch ist Professor für Philosophie an der Ruhr-Universität Bochum.   Print

  • Michal Luczewski

    Ph.D. candidate in Sociology, Warsaw University
    Read more

  • Charles S. Maier

    Charles S. Maier ist Direktor des Center for European Studies, Harvard University.   Print

  • Andrey Makarychev

    Andrey Makarychev ist Professor und Research Fellow am Institut Osteuropäische Studien an der Freien Universität Berlin.   Print

  • Michał Maciej Matlak

    Ph.D. candidate, Department of Political and Social Sciences, European University Institute, Florence
    Read more

  • Erik Meyer

    Erik Meyer ist seit 2000 wissenschaftlicher Mitarbeiter am Sonderforschungsbereich ‘Erinnerungskulturen’ an der Justus-Liebig Universität Gießen.   Print

  • Krzysztof Michalski

    IWM Founding Rector
    Read more

  • Hans J. Misselwitz

    Hans-Jürgen Misselwitz ist ein deutscher SPD-Politiker und Gründungsmitglied des Instituts Solidarische Moderne.   Print

  • Alessandro Monsutti

    Alessandro Monsutti is an associate professor of anthropology and development sociology at the Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies in Geneva, as well as research associate at the Refugee Studies Centre at the University of Oxford. He worked as a consultant for several nongovernmental and international organizations, icnluding UNHCR. His book War and Migration: Social Networks …
    Read more

  • Jan-Werner Müller

    Professor of Politics, Princeton University

    Visiting Fellow
    (September 2016 – June 2017)
    Read more

  • Rainer Münz

    Professor für Bevölkerungswissenschaft, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin; Korrespondierendes Mitglied des IWM
    Read more

  • Sighard Neckel

    Professor of Sociology, Goethe-Universität, Frankfurt am Main
    Read more

  • Katherine Newman

    Katherine S. Newman is the James B. Knapp Dean of The Zanvyl Krieger School of Arts and Sciences. She is a widely published expert on poverty and the working poor who led major interdisciplinary initiatives at Princeton and Harvard universities.     Print

  • Pierre Nora

    Pierre Nora lehrt Geschichte an der École des Hautes Études en Sciences Sociales (EHESS) in Paris.   Print

  • Tereza Novotna

    Political Science, Boston University
    Read more

  • Ewald Nowotny

    Ewald Nowotny is Governor of the Austrian National Bank.   Print

  • Thomas Nowotny

    Thomas Nowotny teaches Political Science at the University of Vienna. He has been Austrian diplomat, private secretary to Austrian Chancellor Bruno Kreisky, senior political counselor to the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development, and consultant to the OECD.   Print

  • Vlad Odobescu

    Freelance journalist, Romanian Centre for Investigative Journalism, Bucharest
    Read more

  • Andrzej Paczkowski

    Professor für Geschichte, Institut für Politische Studien, Polnische Akademie der Wissenschaften, Warschau
    Read more

  • Emilia Palonen

    Politics, University of Essex
    Read more

  • Irina Papkova

    Irina Papkova is a Research Fellow of Georgetown University’s Berkley Center for Religion, Peace, and World Affairs. She spent five years teaching at the Department of International Relations and European Studies at Central European University, Budapest.   Print

  • Agnieszka Pasieka

    Ph.D. in Social Anthropology from the Martin Luther University, Halle/Saale
    Read more

  • Gleb Pavlovsky

    President, Center of Effective Policies; Member, Public Chamber of the Russian Federation; Editor-in-Chief, The Russian Journal (Moscow)
    Read more

  • György Péteri

    Professor of Contemporary European History, Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Trondheim
    Read more

  • Tanja Petrovic

    Tanja Petrovic works at the Scientific Research Center of the Slovenian Academy of Sciences and Arts, Ljubljana.   Print

  • David Petruccelli

    PhD candidate in History, Yale University
    Read more

  • Alexander von Plato

    Alexander von Plato ist ein deutscher Philosoph und Historiker. Er gründete das Instituts für Geschichte und Biographie an der Fernuniversität Hagen, das er bis 2007 leitete. Von 1996 bis 2000 war er Sekretär der International Oral History Association, von 2006 bis 2008 deren Vizepräsident. Er ist Mitherausgeber und Redakteur von BIOS – Zeitschrift für Biographieforschung, Oral …
    Read more

  • Andrei Plesu

    Andrei Plesu ist Rektor des New Europe College, Bukarest. 1989- 1991 war er rumänischer Kulturminister und 1997- 1999 rumänischer Außenminister.   Print

  • Martin Pollack

    Martin Pollack, geb. 1944 in OÖ, studierte Slawistik und osteuropäische Geschichte. Er war von 1987 bis 1998 Redakteur des “Spiegel” in Warschau und Wien und lebt heute als Schriftsteller und literarischer Übersetzer in Wien und Bocksdorf im Südburgenland. 2011 erhielt er den Leipziger Buchpreis zur Europäischen Verständigung und 2012 den Stanislaw-Vincenz-Preis. Zuletzt erschien von ihm …
    Read more

  • Krzysztof Pomian

    Krzysztof Pomian is Professor of History at the Nicolaus Copernicus University (Toruń) and Academic Director of the Museum of Europe in Brussels.   Print

  • Romano Prodi

    Romano Prodi war von September 1999 bis November 2004 Präsident der Europäischen Kommission.   Print

  • Lipin Ram

    PhD candidate and teaching assistant in Anthropology and Sociology of Development, Graduate Institute, Geneva
    Read more

  • Mykola Riabchuk

    Senior Research Fellow, Institute of Political and Nationalities’ Studies, Academy of Sciences, Kyiv
    Read more

  • Edelbert Richter

    Edelbert Richter ist deutscher Theologe, Politiker und war Mitglied des Deutschen Bundestages.   Print

  • Paul Ricoeur

    Paul Ricoeur ist Philosoph und war Professor Emeritus an der University of Chicago und an der Sorbonne. Er war Mitglied der Académie Francaise und Mitglied des Wissenschaftlichen Beirats des IWM. Er starb 2005.   Print

  • Michel Rocard

    Michel Rocard, former First Secretary of the French Socialist Party and a member of the European Parliament for 15 years, was Prime Minister of France from 1988 to 1991.   Print

  • Akos Rona-Tas

    Akos Rona-Tas is professor at the Sociology Department of the University of California, San Diego and a research associate at Met@risk, INRA, Paris. He is the author of the books Plastic Money: Constructing Markets for Credit Cards in Eight Postcommunist Countries (with Alya Guseva, 2014) and Surprise of the Small Transformation: Demise of Communism and …
    Read more

  • Lew Rubinstein

    Lew Rubinstein lebt als Poet und Essayist in Moskau. Nach dem Studium der Philologie war er als Bibliothekar tätig. Seit Ende der 1960er-Jahre verfasst er poetische Arbeiten, seit 1974 serielle Textzyklen als so genannte Kartotheken. Zusammen mit Andrej Monastyrskij, Dimitrij A. Prigov und Vladimir Sorokin gilt er als wichtigster Vertreter des Moskauer Konzeptualismus. Print

  • Jacques Rupnik

    Geschichte und Politikwissenschaft, Paris
    Read more

  • Claudia Šabi?

    Claudia Šabi? ist Politikwissenschaftlerin und Ethnologin. Seit 1998 ist sie Wissenschaftliche Mitarbeiterin an der Goethe-Universität, Frankfurt am Main. Print

  • Ranabir Samaddar

    Ranabir Samaddar is the Director of the Calcutta Research Group. His research focuses on migration and refugee studies, the theory and practices of dialogue, nationalism and post-colonial statehood in South Asia, and new regimes of technological restructuring and labour control. Among his many publications are Marginal Nation: Trans-border Migration from Bangladesh to India (1999), Politics of Dialogue: Living under …
    Read more

  • Paul Sanders

    Paul Sanders is a historian and management scholar. He is a full-time professor at Reims Management School in Reims, France. He has published across the disciplines of history, international relations and leadership.   Print

  • Karl Schlögel

    Karl Schlögel war Professor für Osteuropäische Geschichte zuerst an der Universität Konstanz, dann an der Europa-Universität Viadrina in Frankfurt/Oder. Nach seiner Emeritierung arbeitet er an einer Archäologie des Kommunismus und einer Geschichte des Wolgaraumes. Zurzeit ist er City of Vienna/IFK Fellow am IFK in Wien.     Print

  • Thomas Schmid

    Thomas Schmid is the publisher of the WELT Group, Berlin. He worked for various newspapers, among them as editor of the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung and the Frankfurter Allgemeine Sonntagszeitung. From 2006 to 2010 he was Editor-in-Chief of Die Welt.   Print

  • Margit Schratzenstaller

    Margit Schratzenstaller is senior researcher at the Austrian Institute of Economic Research (WIFO) and is currently coordinating (together with Karl Aiginger and Stefan Ederer) ‘WWW for Europe’, a 4-year research project within the 7th Framework Program funded by the European Commission.   Print

  • Dieter Segert

    Dieter Segert ist Professor für Transformationsprozesse in Mittel-, Südost- und Osteuropa am Institut für Politikwissenschaft der Universität Wien. Seit September 2007 ist er Mitglied des Vorstandes des IDM Wien, seit Juni 2008 Mitglied der Leibniz-Sozietät der Wissenschaften zu Berlin.   Print

  • Victoriya Sereda

    Sociologie, Ivan-Franko-Universität, Lviv
    Read more

  • Michel Serres

    Michel Serres ist Philosoph und Mitglied der Académie Française.   Print

  • Marci Shore

    Associate Professor of History, Yale University
    Read more

  • Sławomir Sierakowski

    Director, Institute for Advanced Study, Warsaw; Founder, "Krytyka Polityczna" movement
    Read more

  • Sara Silverstein

    Ph.D. Candidate in Modern European and International History, Yale University
    Read more

  • Aleksander Smolar

    Political Science, Paris
    Read more

  • Timothy Snyder

    IWM Permanent Fellow
    Bird White Housum Professor of History, Yale University
    Read more

  • George Soros

    George Soros is a pioneer of the hedge-fund industry, investor and philanthropist, he is the author of many books, including Financial Turmoil in Europe and the United States: Essays (2012), The Soros Lectures: At the Central European University (2010), The Crash of 2008 and What it Means: The New Paradigm for Finance Markets (2009).   …
    Read more

  • Robert Spaemann

    Robert Spaemann ist Professor em. für Philosophie an der Universität München.   Print

  • Pawel Spiewak

    Associate Professor of Sociology, Department of Sociology and Philosophy, Warsaw University
    Read more

  • Wilfried Stadler

    Wilfried Stadler ist Unternehmensberater, Wirtschaftspublizist und Honorarprofessor an der Wirtschaftsuniversität Wien. Bis 2009 war er Vorstandsvorsitzender einer österreichischen Spezialbank für Unternehmensfinanzierung.   Print

  • Rudolf Stamm

    Rudolf Stamm war von 1975 bis 1988 Korrespondent der Neuen Zürcher Zeitung für Osteuropa und Österreich, anschließend bis 1999 für Italien, dann bis zu seiner Pensionierung 2002 für die USA mit Sitz in Washington D.C. Er starb 2010 in der Schweiz. 1985 erscheinen seine NZZ-Reportagen aus Osteuropa in dem Band Alltag und Tradition in Osteuropa. …
    Read more

  • Paul Starr

    Paul Starr ist Professor für Soziologie an der Princeton University und Mitherausgeber von The American Prospect. Er ist Pulitzer-Preisträger.   Print

  • Martina Steer

    ÖAW APART Fellow (History)
    Read more

  • Kristina Stoeckl

    Research Director
    APART Fellow, Austrian Academy of Sciences; Department of Political Sciences, University of Vienna
    Read more

  • Roman Szporluk

    Roman Szporluk is Professor em. of Ukrainian History at Harvard and Professor em. of History at the University of Michigan. He is a foreign member of the National Academy of Sciences in Kiev, Ukraine. His research focuses on modern Ukrainian, Russian, and Polish history, and on Marxism and nationalism in Eastern Europe.   Print

  • Charles Taylor

    IWM Permanent Fellow
    Professor em. of Philosophy, McGill University, Montréal
    Read more

  • Maria Teteriuk

    PhD candidate in Mass Communications and senior lecturer in Media Studies, National University of 'Kyiv-Mohyla Academy', Ukraine
    Read more

  • Philipp Ther

    Junior Professor of Polish and Ukrainian Studies, Europa-Universität Frankfurt / Oder
    Read more

  • Maria Todorova

    Professor of History, University of Illinois at Urbana Champaign
    Read more

  • Balázs Trencsényi

    Balázs Trencsényi, Ph.D., is Associate Professor at the Department of History, CEU. His research focuses on the comparative history of political thought in East Central Europe and the history of historiography. He is co-director of Pasts, Inc., Center for Historical Studies at CEU and Associate Editor of the periodical East Central Europe (Brill). He was …
    Read more

  • Stefan Troebst

    .
    Read more

  • Marius Turda

    Lecturer in the Education Abroad Program, Eötvös Lorand University, Faculty of Humanities, Budapest
    Read more

  • Andreas Umland

    Andreas Umland ist Wissenschaftlicher Mitarbeiter am Institut für Euro-Atlantische Kooperation Kiew sowie Herausgeber der Buchreihe Soviet and Post-Soviet Politics and Society, ibidem-Verlag Stuttgart. Print

  • Victoria Vasilenko

    Assistant Professor of Contemporary History and International Relations, Belgorod National Research University
    Read more

  • David G. Victor

    David G. Victor is a Professor at the School of International Relations and Pacific Studies at the University of California, San Diego, where he directs the Laboratory on International Law and Regulation.   Print

  • Harald Welzer

    Harald Welzer ist Forschungsprofessor für Sozialpsychologie an der Universität Witten/Herdecke und Direktor des Center for Interdisciplinary Memory Research am Kulturwissenschaftlichen Instituts Essen.   Print

  • Karolina Wigura

    Adjunct of the History of Ideas, University of Warsaw; Co-Editor of Kultura Liberalna
    Read more

  • Volodymyr Yermolenko

    Volodymyr Yermolenko is a Ukrainian philosopher and essayist. He has a degree in Political Science from the EHESS, Paris, and teaches at Kyiv Mohyla Academy in Kyiv. He is the author of the book Narrator and Philosopher: Walter Benjamin and his time (2011, in Ukrainian). Print

  • Oksana Zabuzhko

    Free-lance writer, Kiev
    Read more

  • Tatiana Zhurzhenko

    Research Director, Russia in Global Dialogue / Ukraine in European Dialogue
    Read more