I wish to begin my remarks by emphasizing that I am not a scholar or an academic and have not prepared dissertations or conducted formal presentations on this evening’s topic before. I am, however, a student of politics and have been involved in both Canadian and Ukrainian political life most of my adult life. This, in turn, has formulated my political thought and has led me to certain points of view, which you may or may not share.
In any case, because we are focusing today on Yevhen Konovalets, a prominent figure in the Ukrainian nationalist movement of the 1920’s and 30’s, I thought it logical to start my presentation with my observations on the terms nationalism and patriotism, fundamental in my mind to this discussion. There is no one agreed upon meaning of nationalism. The term nationalism often has a negative connotation and has often been associated with dangerous and right-wing movements in history like fascism, violent separatist movements like the Kurds or the Basques, or racist movements such as white nationalism.
Many scholars in the West do not differentiate much between ideological terminology such as patriotism and nationalism. Most have adopted the interpretations put forward by French political philosopher Alexis de Tocqueville (19th century) and British writer George Orwell (20th century), who blamed the social state of Europe on the increasing influence of nationalistic sentiment of some countries. In this interpretation, nationalism is defined as considering one’s country to be superior to all others, to the exclusion or detriment of the interests of other nations and often linked to a strong desire for power. Nationalistic feelings, it is argued, are often based on shared ethnicity, language, religion, culture and social values. Patriotism, on the other hand, is generally considered a more positive and passive term, as a pride or positive sentiment for a commonly held set of values and beliefs.
Other scholars have noted the relationship between state-building, war, and nationalism. Many believe that the development of nationalism in Europe was due to the threat of war. External threats, they argue, have a powerful effect on nationalism because people realize that they are under threat because of who they are as a nation. In turn, they realize that only as a nation can successfully defeat that threat.
Still other political philosophers state that liberalism and nationalism are not mutually exclusive, that nationalism in and of itself does not imply intolerance or a belief in the superiority of one ethnicity or one country over another. They do, however, acknowledge that some forms of nationalism do promote ethnocentric supremacy or protectionism.
In essence, as a political ideology nationalism is the notion that a nation should be free to govern itself without any external interference. It holds that the nation is the only true source of power and that no other nation’s laws can be imposed upon them. Nationalism can be a positive influence and is often a catalyst for revolutionist movements that help free nations from tyranny. Arguably, in its extreme forms, it can also be a negative influence and can lead to xenophobia or an irrational fear or hatred of foreign or different people or ideas.
There exist different types of nationalism, including but not limited to civic nationalism, ethnic nationalism, anti-colonial nationalism, liberal nationalism, economic nationalism and socialist nationalism. After considerable reading, I contend that Ukrainian nationalism is of the anti-colonial or political variety. While all countries strive to instill a national consciousness and patriotism and loyalty in their citizens, I believe that political nationalism plays a different role in countries with a colonial past. Countries that have been brutally subjugated and are focusing on achieving political autonomy tend to adopt stronger feelings of nationalism and a quest for self-determination. They adhere to the concept that a nation should be able to govern itself, without external interference. A prime example of this is Ukraine in the 20th century.
Yevhen Konovalets was born on June 14, 1891 in Lviv province, Western Ukraine. He matured in his political thinking as a student of law and subsequently during his military service as a second lieutenant in the Austrian army and his internment in a prisoner of war camp during WWI. It was the aftermath of the loss of the Ukrainian war of liberation (1917-1921), in which he had been pivotal in the formation of the Sich Riflemen, the main line of defense for the short-lived Ukrainian Republic. Disillusioned with the left-leaning political parties that he felt sold out Ukraine, Konovalets was faced with the choice of compromise with the enemy or loyalty to the national liberation movement. He chose the latter.
He saw Soviet-Marxism as a continuation of traditional Russian imperialism and made the decision to continue Ukraine’s struggle through both legal and illicit means. His military background provided him with strong organizational skills, augmented by his own charisma and people skills. In 1921, Konovalets took charge of the UVO, or Ukrainian Military Organization, and successfully strengthened this network. He was able to bring together disparate groups of Ukrainian nationalists and unify them into the Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists in 1929. Konovalets was forced to live in exile for almost two decades (in Berlin, Italy and Lithuania) and presided over the OUN until his assassination by an NKVD agent in Rotterdam in 1938. During this time, Konovalets actively promoted the struggle for Ukrainian liberation among political, military and intelligence circles in Western Europe and set up information and publishing houses abroad. He toured Western Europe and North America extensively to raise awareness among his countrymen and foreign governments. He even raised the Ukrainian liberation cause in the League of Nations. Konovalets was highly respected by his compatriots and by his adversaries alike. The times required a strong and, by our standards, authoritarian leader, which in effect he was.
But what of his legacy? Have the principles and goals he espoused survived? Are they being revived? Or have they been discarded to the garbage dump of history?
While Konovalets and his life history are not as widely known as that of Stepan Bandera or even Roman Shukhevych, a strong interest and revival of the life and history of Yevhen Konovalets have recently emerged.
The disintegration of the Soviet Union in 1991 resulted in a profound difference between the traditionally nationalistic western part of Ukraine, the more moderate central region and the strongly Russified regions in the south an eastern part of the country. This occurred because of three hundred years of Russian rule, the east’s geographic proximity to Russia, the close integration of the economy, the policy of relocating Russian settlers into Ukrainian territories following the Holodomor of 1932-1933, and the resulting blur of cultural differences including language.
Since the war that began with Russia’s annexation of Crimea and the support of the proxy separatist movement in the Donbas regions of Donetsk and Luhansk in 2014, that saw more than 14,000 Ukrainian soldiers and civilians killed, normalization of relations with Russia has steadily declined. The undeclared proxy war in Donbas awakened a sense of patriotism and purpose among the population. Civil society and the veteran’s movement were suddenly energized and found a newly identified sense of purpose. There was an emergence of armed volunteer units and ad hoc volunteer organizations, as well as an erosion of pro-Russian sentiment.
Since the February 24th all-out invasion of Ukraine by Russia, any hope for a peaceful coexistence with Russia has evaporated and the ideological divide between Ukraine and Russia has grown significantly. Russia is now seen by all as a colonial power, no longer as a brotherly nation. Opposing cultural issues between east and a west, including language and the revering of differing historical figures, have all but disappeared. Ukrainians are now declaring themselves as Banderites no matter where they live and the greeting ‘Slava Ukrayini’ can now be heard throughout Ukraine. A recent survey in April 2022 indicates that the population (80 per cent) now supports integration with the EU and there is a steep drop (from 47 to 8 percent) of those supporting of Russia. Moreover, Russian manipulation of the media has been discredited both in Ukraine and in the West. In other words, the blinders are off and the general public can see the emperor wears no clothes. Putin himself has come out of the closet, as it were, to compare himself to Peter the (not-so) great and his plans for expanding his empire.
But Putin’s war has totally backfired. What started as a public relations exercise to allegedly ‘denatzify’ Ukraine and save its Russian-speaking population from alleged persecution has now shown its true purpose – to usurp Ukrainian territory and completely destroy the Ukrainian nation. This has resulted in evoking the very qualities that strengthen a nation – renewed interest in the state language, Ukrainian culture and history, a feeling of nationhood, brotherly love, a strong civil society, organization, discipline, courage and self-sacrifice. Independence and national rights have become paramount. The ideological divide between Ukraine and Russia has widened as never before. Nationalism in Ukraine is indeed alive and well. Konovalets’ dream will be fulfilled. Ukraine as a nation and a western democracy will survive and flourish.
