Andreij Kurkov is undoubtedly the best known of Ukrainian writers. With no less than 19 novels, 9 children’s books and several screenplays to his credit, as well as short stories and non-fiction (including Ukraine Diaries, Diary of an Invasion, Our Daily War), Kurkov is also extremely well known abroad, where he participates in literary fairs and festivals of international stature, bringing his works, translated into 37 languages and published in 65 countries.

I chose to interview him in Kyiv, not only because he is a prominent personality on the national cultural scene, but also because of certain characteristics that make him one of the most reliable observers of the current situation, being a Ukrainian of Russian descent who publishes books in Russian and having also followed first-hand the protests of the Revolution of Dignity (known to many as Euromaidan) since early December 2013, which then became the subject of two of his best-sellers.

If you had to describe the kind of war Russia is waging against Ukraine, what word would you use?

Recolonisation. Russia is trying to take back Ukraine and turn it into a Russian colony, an imperial colony or an imperial territory. This is the main goal.

Many see in this war a desire on the part of Russia and other autocracies to rewrite the rules of international relations, or perhaps even abolish them. That is, to replace the rule of law with the right to use force.

I agree and I must say that Trump is helping them, really helping them. The fact that America has decided to no longer be a leader in the democratic world has made Russia, North Korea, China and Iran much bolder and more determined in their desire to change the world order.

How do you see the issue of territorial cessions or, as some say, exchange of territories?

Well, I would say that an exchange can take place between Russian territory and Ukrainian territory. I mean, you cannot exchange Ukrainian territory for Ukrainian territory. So that’s nonsense. And the question of any concessions… to make territorial concessions to Russia, is to decree its victory and push it to demand more.

The other issue is that of security guarantees. Moscow actually seems reluctant to provide them. What could be a possible mediation point?

I think Russia should not be part of any guarantee. Because they are the ones who are breaking the rules, breaking the guarantees. The question is, if anything, whether Europe intends to take Ukraine under its protection and accept it as a member of the European Union. Because if not, Ukraine is destined to remain a de facto buffer zone, which some European leaders probably like. But in that case there will be no protection for Ukraine, let alone Europe.

Language, religion and identity

Among the Russian demands, I was particularly struck by the reintroduction of the Russian language and the Russian Orthodox Church. Are these acceptable in your opinion? I ask this question because you are a Ukrainian writer, but of Russian origin. And you write in Russian. And even in Italy, there is often much confusion between Russian speakers and pro-Russians.

Before the war, 40% of Ukrainians spoke Russian. Maybe 10% of them were pro-Russian. Most of these people are now dead or refugees, because they lived in the Donbas and Crimea. So, in no way, for Ukrainians, speaking Russian means being pro-Russian. The two things do not coincide. And actually, Russian speakers have never needed any kind of protection from Ukraine. Even before the war, I never had a problem writing in Russian. Because of Putin, now my books, for example, are not published in Russia. As for the Russian Orthodox Church, you will be surprised to know that it is still very active. Last week they organised a pilgrimage, a huge pilgrimage to Bukovina. From Bukovina to Pochaiv, I believe in the Khmel’nyc’kyj region, or the Ternopil region. Since they are now the second main monastery of the Russian Orthodox Church. No one has stopped them. We are talking about tens of thousands of Russian Orthodox believers who crossed western and southern Ukraine on foot. And I also assume that they were led by pro-Russian priests. Because without their organisation, it could not have been done. Their aim was clearly to provoke the reaction of the Ukrainian government. Stop this pilgrimage, arrest the priests. None of this happened. That is why there is no mention of it in the media. But you can find pictures of these huge crowds of Orthodox faithful led by Russian priests in Ukraine during the war.

This war has come at a crucial moment in your country’s nation building process. Putin recently declared in China that there was a coup in Maidan, sponsored by the West. You have written two books on the revolution that Ukrainians call the ‘Revolution of Dignity’. You were there in those months in the square. What kind of revolution was it really?

Well, first of all, those who try to judge Ukraine only by Maidan and these events do not understand the difference in mentality between Russians and Ukrainians. Ukrainians are always ready to protest. Because Ukrainians are individualists. They feel they have freedom of political decision. That is why we have never had a president for 20 years like in Russia. And that is why, in fact, everyone in Ukraine is fed up with corruption, both political and economic. So the second Maidan, the Maidan of 2014, after the Orange Revolution of 2004, was actually provoked by the pro-Russian President Yanukovich, who wanted to imitate Putin’s behaviour and wanted to control all of Ukraine economically and politically, thinking that he could stay in power like Putin for 10 years, for 20 years. So, I remember when I first arrived in Maidan at the beginning of the protests, it was the beginning of December 2013, and I was talking to people, I realised that those people were there not only because Yanukovich had said we would not go to Europe, but because they were tired of the local corruption or the local politicians. They came from all over Ukraine to express their dissent. They were dissatisfied. It was a huge mass of people, who only then expressed their common will, which was to join Europe, because fighting corruption means precisely moving towards Europe, towards a more civilised society. This is, and actually remains my impression, that the people who came, had in some cases clear political demands, in others they were just dissatisfied with the situation Ukraine was in at that moment. Together, they became more politically aware at that moment, but at the same time, they were not politically aware enough to create a political party, they did not create a new form of power, nor did they send a new political force to parliament after Maidan. And this again because Ukrainians are individuals, because nobody wants to unite.

What kind of Ukraine will emerge from this war, do you think?

It’s hard to predict, because now we have several Ukrainians. We have the Ukraine of refugees, then the Ukraine abroad. Six million people, seven million people of whom only maybe 10 per cent will be ready to return. So they will create a new diaspora. Partly they will assimilate, partly they will become groups of Ukrainians living abroad, like after 1991, etc. We have displaced Ukrainians who have a different character, who are very bitter, who are unhappy, who have lost their homes, who are trying to integrate into life in a different region. And sometimes they are not welcome, sometimes they are. We have Ukrainians who still live at home, like me, who feel more stable, but in a still very fragile situation, because I don’t know where a missile or a drone will fall tomorrow. What can unite all these Ukrainians is only a huge reconstruction effort, the reconstruction of Ukraine, as long as it starts immediately after the end of the war. And if many foreign volunteers, young volunteers, came to help the Ukrainians, that would also give motivation to the Ukrainians who are tired, who are not very optimistic. In any case, I can say what Ukraine will never become: an authoritarian state, because it does not work here. The reality is that people cannot stand politicians, they hate them. I always say that Ukraine is the home of anarchy. The largest army of anarchists was organised in Ukraine in 1918 by Nestor Machno. So.

Europe, democracy and the future

How do you assess Europe’s attitude towards Ukraine? Is there anything they still don’t understand about Ukraine and this war?

I think politicians understand a lot. And ordinary people have also learned a lot about Ukraine. But the EU’s attitude I would say is ambiguous, because the EU without the US has become or at least appears fragile. Some politicians, like Fico and Orban, until recently had to decide whether to be more friends with Trump or Putin. They obviously chose Putin, because they saw that Trump is weak and Trump does not care about Europe. And that is a very bad sign. Because I think there will be other politicians who will try to follow in the footsteps of Fico and Orban. Not necessarily Poland or the Czech Republic after the next election, but maybe Austria or maybe Italy and Greece. I hope not.

We spoke earlier about the new Ukraine, but the feeling is that in this world where even the United States has begun to see itself as a potential autocracy, a new Europe is also needed. How can Ukraine contribute to building a new Europe?

In the meantime, Ukraine can contribute to the creation of a new European army, because in reality NATO is compromised and there is no guarantee that Article 5 would also apply if Russia were to attack Estonia or Lithuania. Because America has the largest share in NATO and Trump can say “let’s wait two or three weeks and then decide”. So I think the EU should think about a joint European army with one European command. And if this army was established on the basis of NATO or in parallel, it would need the experience of Ukrainian officers, Ukrainian command. Everyone would feel much stronger if Ukraine was involved in the creation of the European army, militarily and politically, maybe not economically.

You have written a lot about patriotism. There is no doubt that Ukraine has shown patriotism. Is this what Europe lacks instead?

Eh, the word patriotism is actually not at all popular in Europe. If anything, an abstract European patriotism that ends with the phrase ‘I am European’ is in fashion. There is no such thing as French or Austrian patriotism, because politicians fear that patriotism and nationalism will become too interconnected if they promote patriotism in their own country. And the result of this is very clear, because in some countries more than 60 per cent of the people interviewed in the street said they were not ready to fight for their country. Being Europeans, maybe they imagine that they can go to another European country that will not be attacked. This is a problem that needs to be addressed not only by philosophers, but also by politicians. Many Europeans think that they will never be attacked, because somehow these 70-80 years of tranquillity in Europe have led people to believe that peace is forever and that we live in a new civilisation without war, without danger. And this political slippage in Europe I think has also contributed greatly to the dangerous situation we have now. Germany, for example, was quite happy to trade with Russia even after the annexation of Crimea.

A few weeks ago, the passing of the anti-corruption law, later withdrawn, triggered mass protests in the streets. How do you see the state of democracy in Ukraine?

First of all, we can say that democracy is already there, and indeed it almost makes me think that in a ‘normal’ war situation the country would probably have ‘less democracy’, but I do not want to be misunderstood. Ukrainian democracy, as I said, is based on anarchy, on the desire and voice of every person involved. It is not politically organised. Which makes the country more fragile in case of danger. Unstable. And I think the government realised that when the protests against that law broke out. But the fact is that I think the protests happened because society takes every action of the government critically. So they don’t trust the government, they don’t trust the office of the president when he decides to do something, to change the rules of the game. And it is also dangerous because we know that Putin hates Zelensky. Trump does not like Zelensky. But if the Ukrainians really start attacking Zelensky, this will be the end not of Zelensky, but the end of Ukraine. So, really, the Ukrainians should consolidate their position. They can criticise, and there is always a reason to criticise Zelensky and the government. But everyone should understand the consequences of their every action.

Ukraine is still under martial law. So even to imagine an election would be unrealistic. But if you were to sketch a sketch of who the next president should be or imagine what the new political class would look like, what would you say?

I would say that it is difficult to understand the balance of political forces when the war is over, because we don’t know when it will end and because during the war there is no political activity in the country, other than institutional activity. But of course Ukrainians always want to have a choice. And now the majority still supports Zelensky, but it may be different when the war is over, when a choice can be made, when there will be another candidate. And it will really depend on the promises of the new candidate and the reality that Zelensky is really attached to. He was elected with a clear agenda. One of his main promises was to reach an agreement with Putin as quickly as possible. So he will be judged on his broken promises as much as anyone else….

When and how do you think the war will end?

I think the most logical thing to say is that the war will end after Putin’s death or removal, because Putin will not surrender, Putin will not stop the war. He will not accept any kind of peace agreement. But the economic situation in Russia is bad and getting worse. Now there is no petrol, there is no free access to the roads. And I think this is one of the reasons why Ukraine is being bombed more and more aggressively. It is a revenge for the situation in Russia. There is no political force in Russia other than Putin’s. So you can’t imagine anyone saying, ‘Let’s remove it, make the deal and stop the war’. So let’s be realistic. War and Putin are the same thing. They are synonymous.

And don’t you fear that after Putin there will be a Putin 2.0?

No, not necessarily, although I realise it is fashionable to say so. But in reality, Russians love and fear their Tsar Putin. Putin has not prepared anyone to replace him with the same aura, with the same reputation, someone towards whom Russia can have the same attitude. So, when he is gone, the place will be empty. Whoever arrives will be young and ‘new’ and the Russians will therefore not be afraid of him. This is fundamental. Russian society today is based on fear. Fear has a face, Putin’s face. If there is no longer fear, then there will be riots, other things will happen. But the whole structure based on fear will collapse or freeze. And people will wait to see what happens next. But they will not accept a new leader with the same kind of love, fear, adoration and trust.