The defeat of the Liberation Struggles after the collapse of the Russian Empire sparked discussions among freedom fighters: why did this happen, who is to blame, and what to do next?
Was there not enough military power to hold the state together? Both yes and no. Under the Ukrainian banners at the time of the empire’s collapse, military units numbered up to 2 million people. But when it came to organising the state and defending it from the aggressor, it turned out that raising the flag was one thing, and going to war against the enemy was quite another. Most Ukrainians did not understand why they needed this state, and many even considered the authorities in Kyiv their enemies. There were the atamans’ armies, but for them, Ukraine was limited to the familiar old administrative territories. And so it turned out that millions under banners were one thing, and an organised army was quite another.
It turned out that the dreamers in the Central Council neither understood the realities of the liberation struggle nor had any ability for state-building. Moreover, they did not understand who their allies were and who their enemies were, and only the aggression of the Bolsheviks showed them who the enemy of the state was, which history had given them to lead.
When defeat became finally clear, it was time to think about what to do next.
We associate the liberation process of the last century with the person of Yevhen Konovalets, and so far, historical research has not suggested other candidates for the organiser of this process. It was he who initiated the creation of the Ukrainian Military Organisation, and he also changed the emphasis of this structure’s activities from purely military to educational and propagandistic. Thanks to his understanding of the importance of ideology, it was Dmytro Dontsov who became the editor of the Literary and Scientific Bulletin, and the Bulletin itself received funding for publication. The restoration of Plast and the education of the younger generation by veterans who did not renounce the idea of fighting for the state became another factor in the formation of the liberation process.
When the younger generation began to study at universities, ideology became important to them, and here, Dontsov’s ability to throw ideas for ideological discussions turned out to be very valuable. The youth rightly believed that the struggle that awaits the nation ahead is already the business of the new generation, and therefore, the ideological justification of this struggle is their business, as well as the organisational methods of struggle. Therefore, although the unification of nationalist organisations into the OUN took place with the overwhelming majority of veterans, the practice of the struggle quickly showed that real actions are being taken, and will be taken, by the youth.
The central point of the OUN ideology was the meaning of the life of a member of the Organisation. Not just the desire to fight for the state, but the very meaning of life. There were, are, and will be many who want to fight for Ukraine. They fought, got tired, and left. Then we will fight again. The idea of the OUN as a liberation order poses the question differently: I live for the liberation of Ukraine. I am ready to do things every day for the liberation of Ukraine. I do these things, not counting on either glory or pay. And if for the cause I have to give my life to Ukraine, then I will give it worthily. Ukraine becomes the meaning of life, the mission that a member of the Organisation has undertaken to fulfil from the moment of taking the oath.
Very few people meet such requirements. Someone, truly being a patriot, wants the glory of a fighter for Ukraine. And if he sees that the Organisation does not promise this glory, and does not give it, he becomes disappointed and steps aside. Someone, also being a patriot, seeks power, and it must be won with the blood of the best sons and daughters of the nation. He retreats where dangerous deeds must be performed. To meet the requirements of the OUN, one must have absolute faith that the meaning of life for Ukraine is correct, that dedicating one’s life to the nation is the only correct meaning of life. One must be an idealist because, after all, the entire ideology of the OUN is idealistic.
If we look at the history of the OUN struggle in the last century through the filter of the life mission of an OUN member, many things become logical and understandable. The 30 June Act had little chance of being adopted by Hitler’s Germany. But if a nation does not declare its right to statehood, then it will not receive it. If there are no Heroes to fight for the rights of the nation in a hopeless situation, then they may not appear when the situation is winning, but the losers will be organised by those who like to “fix things”. When we analyse the behaviour of Bandera and Stetsko during interrogations in the Gestapo in 1941, we must start with the life mission of an OUN member. There is no option in this mission to exchange the nation’s statehood for personal gain. But the decision to proclaim the restoration of Statehood was not made by Bandera and Stetsko – it was a collective decision of the leading stratum of the OUN. They all knew that they would have to pay for it with their own blood. Their life mission did not allow for any other decision. They died for it. But they created an intangible factor that preserved the nation’s desire for freedom. And which still works, in the conditions of a difficult war, despite the dominance of decision-makers in the power structures, for whom Ukraine is a valuable asset that can be “negotiated.”
The OUN is incomprehensible to people with a materialistic mindset. Something powerful that has done incredible things, if you think in terms of “real politics”. And at the same time, something that cannot be touched. For a materialist, it is “magic”, or, if you want to belittle it, then “fanaticism”. In fact, it is the materialisation of faith. It is the embodiment of what passionaries believe in and are ready to devote their lives to it. It is the social force of nationalism, which is feared by those who build their well-being on the enslavement of nations. The OUN, through its activities, objectively showed how to release this huge social force: to organise people for joint work, ready to live with a mission for the sake of their nation. To organise not for the sake of money, fame or power, but for the sake of an idea. This is very uninteresting for materialistic skinheads. But it wins. All you need is a critical mass of idealists with a mission.
