About 15 years ago, Ukrainian writer Yuri Andrujovich (Ivano-Franjvsk, 1960) visited Barcelona for the first time to present one of his books. Since then, ignorant citizens have taken a full and painful path not only in the identity of the Slavic country, but also in what it means to live under the giant Russian threat. With a new book under his arm, ‘Small encyclopedia of sincere place’ (Cliff), it’s nearly impossible to talk to the author—one of the most well-known of the criminal Ukrainian language that stands out today—just about his literary creations. Today, pain and bombs dominate.
His book, which is also a diary, a travel book, and a collection of political notes, has a chapter devoted to 90’s Moscow, describing the city as a monster whose love could explode at any moment. Do you feel the same today?
30 years ago I wrote a book about the Russian capital ‘Muscoviada’, where I just showed how attractive and impressive it is, and years later in ‘Little encyclopedia’… I qualified some things: of course it’s a great city, but Japan’ I would appreciate it more if I was in Brazil or Brazil. Our destiny, he said, is to have her with us as an offensive focus. Unfortunately, the facts proved me right.
I think independence in 1991 was a big boost for battered Ukrainian literature.
The material conditions were very difficult because we lacked many things, but we gained one fundamental thing: freedom of expression linked to a collective conscience. The history of literature before that moment, namely the collapse of the Soviet Union, was conditioned by the ban. We knew before the books came out that the censors would come with scissors. So in 1991, among other things, our letters were re-founded, because many people began to write in their mother tongue, something that became a majority when promoted after the occupation. Unfortunately there are very few Ukrainian authors translated into the majority languages.
What role do these writers play in public debates in the country?
It turns out that social networks are very important. It is a good platform for discussion. On Facebook, writers who are often very active post critical articles of a social and political nature and then express their opinions in more formal conversations like Zelensky’s.
Corruption and poverty have long been used by the Western press to describe Ukraine.
While much has been gained, with independence Ukraine has been left at the mercy of corruption and raging extreme poverty. Did the war serve to revise these aspects, to make them more visible?
Corruption and poverty have long been the two clichés used by the Western press to describe Ukraine, but I think a qualification should be made as they are definitely not the two main features of the country. For example, it should be said that we have a civil society made up of a very strong and influential middle class that fights and fights corruption because it does not want to have the levels of civil depravity that Russia has. These social movements were very well captured by the Western media.
Some media changing their vision of Ukraine.
In the end, yes, but it cost them dearly to do so.
Do you think they are interpreted better now?
Certainly. It would be easy to say that we have no reality beyond the façade, but in parallel, the journalists took care to describe what our daily life, art or culture is like.
Ukraine will never give up, so those who have it can now drop those expectations.
I imagine that the argument that it could have been avoided if Ukraine entered the Third World War is not foreign to you.
I don’t like meeting these viewpoints. Ukraine will never give up, so those who have it can now drop those expectations. I would like to add one more thing there: we will win. No options.
Is there any hope for pacifism in such a stalemate?
Pacifism belongs to a different universe from the one we live in. Because if you surrender, the occupying forces will not let you live in peace, or even keep you alive. If you go to Bucha or Kherson, you will be able to see what the occupation forces did to the people: they shot and destroyed them.
Putin broke the nuclear disarmament treaty. Are you bluffing?
Don’t hesitate. What is he trying to intimidate? Not to the Ukrainians who do not believe him, but to the Western public. Had he used nuclear weapons, he would have been one of the first victims, and he’s not stupid, because Kiev is not far from Moscow to affect them. They are strategies to influence peacemakers. His passion is to perpetuate himself and sit at a very long table with Western leaders, like the one he used with Macron, and take pictures. That doesn’t show courage, it’s just playing with fear.
Many Russian writers who fled the country were cited in the CCCB. Do you think Putin might fall if the internal opposition gets stronger?
Maybe yes. Or maybe not. It’s not my concern. The question is not what they do. The important thing is what we do and what we have to do is to win, the success of our army.
And what it would really mean to win the war. Can there be a lasting peace?
In the past we got our lands back, the Russian army was defeated. So our idea of victory is very simple: all the lands occupied today must be legally recognized by international law as Ukrainian territory, the country must be a member of NATO and the European Union. These three conditions constitute victory.
But they would not be able to get rid of a neighbor who was both powerful and humiliated.
This is Russia’s problem. Maybe they will collapse and become a smaller region. The truth is that if we are in Europe, they will have no choice but to respect us.
Will the conflict produce literary work? Will you write about it?
War will be present in every chapter of my next book, but will not be shown directly. It is very difficult for me now to write anything strictly literary, because the most urgent thing in my country is to participate in the press and be a part of the public debate. But yes, I couldn’t necessarily write anything else that no longer has anything to do with the war. Writers have to be witnesses of their time.