Historian Ilya Chedoluma on the Shortcomings of Modern Ukrainian Nationalism

Critique of Contemporary Ukrainian Nationalism

According to ХВИЛЯ: During an interview with political scientist Yuriy Romanenko, historian Ilya Chedoluma offered a critical analysis of the modern Ukrainian nationalist movement and state governance. He focused on the historical activities of the Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists (OUN) and Soviet propaganda, highlighting issues plaguing the nationalist movement in Ukraine, including a lack of economic nationalism and a failure to fully acknowledge the reality of the Ukrainian state.

Chedoluma pointed out that Soviet propaganda chose Stepan Bandera as its primary bogeyman, rather than Yevhen Konovalets, the first leader of the OUN who died in 1938. The historian noted that the cult of leadership was widespread across Europe in the 1920s and 30s, and nationalists at the time saw it as the cutting edge of political thought. In his words,

“Soviet propaganda understood that it was very difficult to demonize figures like Konovalets, so they selected Bandera as the main target. This tradition of using individuals with certain surnames-Mazepa, Petliura, Bandera-as symbols to criticize the entire national movement persists to this day.”

The Challenges Facing Ukrainian Nationalism

Chedoluma also stressed that Ukrainian nationalism has essentially failed to evolve since the early 1990s.

“The greatest mystery to me is how it happened that Ukrainian nationalism has barely evolved since the early 1990s. We have not formulated new concepts for the Ukrainian state, while the world around us is no longer what it was thirty years ago,”

he remarked. The historian argued that contemporary Ukrainian society suffers from a critical shortage of economic nationalists who would actively invest money and resources into the country's development.

Chedoluma emphasized that 'if you possess a state, acquiring it can no longer be the primary goal.' He noted that 'the problem is that those who call themselves Ukrainian nationalists have not mentally crossed the threshold of this formerly stateless nation.' The historian observed that it is crucial to understand what the Ukrainian state should be today, because 'preserving it is an entirely different matter from simply acquiring it.'

Examining the current rhetoric of nationalists, Chedoluma indicated that it often sounds as if 'we are about to acquire a state, as if it does not currently exist.' He underscored that 'when we debate every question of division along linguistic or other lines, it sounds as if we are standing on the threshold of 1930 and the Ukrainian state is not a reality.' The historian also noted the absence of economic nationalism in Ukraine, stating that 'many activists fight for language or culture in the public sphere, but do not strive to tie the fate of their own wallets to this country.'

Overall, Ilya Chedoluma outlined contemporary challenges for which Ukrainian nationalism lacks answers, such as the new economic order, artificial intelligence, and the breakdown of the global system. He stressed the necessity of formulating new concepts for the Ukrainian state that align with modern realities.

Ilya Chedoluma's commentary highlights the urgent need to update nationalist rhetoric and strategies in Ukraine. The country's current challenges, including a full-scale war, demand not only the preservation of national identity but also robust participation in global economic processes. The development of a strong economic nationalism could prove vital for strengthening the state and improving the welfare of its citizens, moving beyond historical grievances to address present-day needs.