For the past two decades, we have been writing an ambivalent history of Ukraine. A history in which we are trying to reconcile irreconcilable narratives. Khmelnytsky is the best example. He is a hero and a traitor. An attempt to move away from the black and white concept is a blasphemy and a marginalization for a scholar. At best, we allow ourselves small curtsies. This is not a problem. It is a disease of growth and maturation. The main thing is to go through this phase.

The Second World War and its history are thought of in the same trap-paradigm. We are either for glorification of Bandera or for continuation of the Soviet narrative about the contribution of Ukrainians in the Second World War.

But now, as strange as it may sound, we may not need a unified narrative. The fact is that we are sorely lacking in true facts. It is this fact that both current concepts will eventually crash into. Or rather, they will not crash into, but will turn into something new.

Subscribe to LIGA PRO to read this article. Go to the full version of the page.
Articles published in the "Opinions" section reflect the point of view of the author and may not reflect the position of the LIGA.net editors