The figure of the Polish historian, political philosopher, editor of the magazine “Arkan”, and professor of the Jagiellonian University is well known in the circles of Ukrainian humanitarians. On the other hand, to the average reader, who has not delved into the problems of the history of Poland, the history and essence of empires, “wars of memory”, Polish-Ukrainian interwar relations, international politics of 1919-1939, etc., his name will hardly mean anything. Perhaps the main reason for such injustice was the lack of Ukrainian translations of the researcher’s works.
The publishing project of the Polish Institute in Kyiv, the Polish Institute of the Book and the Kyiv publishing house “Spirit and Letter”, implemented in 2021, aimed to correct this situation. It was thanks to their efforts that the first collection of essays by A. Nowak was published, which will be the subject of our attention in this review. Since some of the articles were written specifically for this edition, some were the result of the author’s implementation of other research projects and only presented their results in an abbreviated form, and another part appeared in the form of main theses from the author’s previously published monographs, the architecture of the book turned out to be quite peculiar. The introduction was written by Ukrainian historiographer A. Portnov, who has been working in Poland and Germany for many years.
The four main chapters present the views of a Polish expert on the problems of the Russian Revolution and its impact on the situation in Europe, on the events of the Warsaw Battle of 1920, their consequences for the development of international relations, and on the so-called eastern policy of Yu. Pilsudski, extremely interesting and relevant questions about the origins of Russian Eurasianism, the problem of the genesis of the “evil empire” from its rise to its fall, on the role of peripheral elites and the intelligentsia in general in the formation and maintenance of the empire, etc. Instead of the traditional final section, text versions of A. Novak’s conversations with M. Voynar and A. Portnov are presented. The scholarly apparatus, which will be most useful to the interested reader, includes thorough footnotes, commentary, notes, and an index.
However, one should not think that the texts now available to the attention of Ukrainians are intended purely for specialists, because a lot of information, the author’s reflections and conclusions will be of interest to anyone who seeks to understand issues that have global significance, influencing the history of Central and Eastern Europe throughout the century.
Although, in addition to theoretical explanations, the researcher (quite naturally) uses examples from Polish history and individual texts of A. Novak can be considered precisely as an essay from the history of Ukraine.
In this context, the works “General Bibikov’s Struggle against the “Reckless Polish Nationality”: Reasons for the Ukrainization of Ukraine” and “Poland, Russia and Ukraine: the strategic triangle of the concept of Józef Pilsudski 1918–1920” deserve special attention. These texts bring to the question of the development of the national movement of the 19th century, which, it would seem, was already well-developed by Ukrainian historiography. and the Polish-Ukrainian Union of 1920, an interesting perspective from the outside. Thanks to the author’s unexpected Ukrainian perspective, well-known facts begin to be perceived in a completely different way, previously invisible nuances are drawn out, and conclusions are specified and more clearly outlined. Many of the opinions of Professor A. Novak, expressed by him in 2017–2021, are now perceived as prophetic, especially against the background of the active phase of the Russian military invasion of Ukraine. Thus, in the text “The Origins of Promethean Concepts in Polish Political Thought”, the author updates the long-known opinions expressed by A. E. Czartoryski regarding the relationship between leading (“ruling”) and secondary (“subordinate”) nations in the empire: “Political slavery […] inflames mutual hatred and chauvinism, poisons the life of the ruling and subordinate nations” (p.90).
In the system of relations between them, “the only language of understanding is servility and corruption, and public opinion is forced to search and simulate, with all the gloomy train of moral consequences of such a state.” Referring to the letters and thoughts of M. Mokhnatskyi, A. Novak draws the reader’s attention to the fact that “absolutism in Russia […] is […] an institution, the existence of which has nothing to do with the existence of the nation, the overthrow of which can be a good thing.” The autocracy and omnipotence of the tsar are intended only to “keep in check this geographical monster (that is, the Russian Empire – OK). Therefore, according to M. Mokhnatskyi, a revolution that would break this colossus on clay feet is very necessary, because patriotism in Russia is equal to slavery (p. 91). Doesn’t it seem that the opinions of those who stood at the origins of Prometheus, selected and analyzed by A. Novak, allow us to look at the peculiarities of the development of the Ukrainian national movement at the end of the 19th and the beginning of the 20th centuries in a slightly different way, in the conditions of the Russian Empire? Do they not explain the essence of those processes that continued in the modern Russian Federation and led to the current military conflict in Eastern Europe? Do they not help to understand the meaning of relations between the government and society not only in present-day Russia but even more so in Belarus?
At least the need to think about these questions is obvious.
It will be no less interesting for the Ukrainian reader to get acquainted with the essay dedicated to the struggle of the Kyiv governor-general D. Bibikov with representatives of the “Polish nation” on the territory of the South-Western region of the Russian Empire, that is, modern Right-Bank Ukraine. First of all, this text draws attention to the little-known Ukrainian “conspiracy” of Sh. Konarskyi, which spread in Volyn and Transnistria already after the suppression of the November Uprising, demonstrating the readiness of Lithuanians, Belarusians, and Ukrainians to fight together (in Kyiv alone, many participants were arrested for this case events). Secondly, D. Bibikov tested on the Poles several methods of eliminating their national separation from the “Great Russians”, which would later be used by the Russian authorities against the Ukrainians. Thirdly, it becomes clear by what actions the administrator of the region earned the favour of the higher authorities and the “role” of the best “cleanser”. Fourthly, the activity of D. Bibikov unexpectedly played in favour of the Ukrainian movement, which at that time, for the first time after the fruitless “mission of Kapnist” in 1791, tried to declare the separateness of Ukrainianness and the goals of its activity, which was embodied in the programme documents of Kyrylo-Mefodiivskyi societies.
Without delving into a detailed review of the content of A. Nowak’s other articles, which are certainly worth a thoughtful reading, I will pay attention only to the problem of Polish-Ukrainian relations in 1920–1921, which emerges in several essays and interviews of the researcher. They reasonably prove that Yu. Pilsudskyi could not have acted differently to Ukraine than it did as a result of the signing of the Riga Peace Treaty of 1921.
In domestic historical literature, one can often find a rather simplified conclusion about the end of the Polish-Ukrainian Union in 1920: “Ukraine was betrayed!”. Instead, the Polish expert, consistently describing the events and circumstances of that time in which both Y. Pilsudski and S. Petlyura found themselves, notes: “The head of state […] did not give up […] the ambitious project […] of destroying the Russian Empire by supporting an independent Ukraine, which confirmed his subsequent decisions. However, he certainly had to reckon with the fact that he is not able to do it” (p. 125). So, in short, Poland abandoned its ally, the alliance itself should be considered a failure since it did not lead to “a strong Ukrainian-Polish understanding, did not cause a turning point in the case of Lviv, and most importantly – did not lead to the creation of a Ukrainian state during the interwar twenty years.”
Having ideas of practical cooperation among Poles, Lithuanians, and Ukrainians in the Baltic-Black Sea region, Y. Pilsudskyi, according to A. Novak, “lost his big project in 1920.” (p. 317). This failure cost Ukrainians and their neighbours great suffering, resulting in 70 years of communist rule. Today, the historian believes, this experience and at the same time the memory of this opportunity, today help to think and act for the sake of understanding, which changes the appearance of Eastern Europe.
Reflections written with the involvement of significant special literature and research by American and Russian authors will be of considerable interest to the interested reader. Their analysis will allow us to delve deeper into the problem of the origins of the modern ideology of Eurasianism, which largely explains the current aggressive policy of Russia and its decision regarding a full-scale military invasion of Ukraine. The author’s analysis of the peculiarities of the formation and disintegration of the Russian and Soviet empires will allow us to see the probable prospects of the future structure of post-war Europe and post-Putin Russia (although A. Novak does not directly indicate this anywhere).
Finally, it will be interesting for the young generation of readers to familiarize themselves with the history of the emergence of the widespread definition of the USSR as an “evil empire” and the reasons for the collapse of this entity, their historical conditioning, the author’s justifications for the impossibility of reviving modern Russia precisely as an empire in the classical sense of the word.
Some issues outlined above and many others left out of this review, which A. Novak masterfully and at the same time interestingly revealed in his writings, should not be left out of the attention of the Ukrainian audience. Moreover, the author is a great friend of our country, he has repeatedly proved this not only with the repertoire of studied topics but also with his reaction to current social and political events. In his interviews, two of which are given at the end of the book, he emphasizes that only agreement and understanding will ensure political existence for both Ukraine and Poland; emphasizes that despite the traumatic memory of many Ukrainians and Poles about the dark pages of their common history, despite the actions of the Moscow agency, which is interested in undermining trust between our nations and in fanning conflict-causing topics, the potential of cultural contacts between Ukraine and Poland is much greater, it is worth all-round development – both now and in the future.
Olga Kovalevska,
Doctor of Historical Sciences, Professor,
leading researcher,
Department of special branches of historical science
and electronic information resources,
Institute of History of Ukraine, NAS of Ukraine
