Powerless Ukraine | Eurozine

Spread the love


No, she doesn’t have a go bag, Angelina Kariakina tells the foreign TV producer before going on to speak about the Russian threat on the Ukraine border. Nor does anyone in her family, nor most of her friends. It isn’t that the editor-in-chief of the independent media project Hromadske TV is complacent. It is just that, as she puts it: ‘Ukrainians have learned to live with an ongoing war’.

As the rest of the world discusses its fate, Ukraine itself lacks a sense of agency, says Kariakina. Eight years after Euromaidan, trust in the state is still weak. And despite bans on Russian TV and social media, anti-Ukrainian propaganda gets through. ‘How’, she asks, ‘do we show we’re an interdependent society that lives in an interdependent world?’

Powerlessness is a feeling shared by Nataliya Gumenyuk. While covering the invasion of Crimea and the war in Donbas, what motivated the journalist was the conviction that ‘no matter what the Kremlin wants to happen, there are still things that depend on us’.

Now, as geopolitics rules the day, that conviction is gone. Or rather, it is in suspense: ‘If the talks fail to achieve something, it’s the people, the residents of Ukrainian towns, the Ukrainian military, who will pay the price. It’ll be their suffering we need to document. And our job will have some meaning again.’

Let’s hope it doesn’t come to that. That peace prevails. And that journalism in Ukraine can nevertheless find a vocation in what Kariakina describes as ‘engaging people in genuine, trustworthy dialogue’.

*

Distrust in authority is the fundamental reason for low vaccination rates across eastern Europe, argues Péter Krekó in conversation with Réka Kinga Papp. But we shouldn’t think of anti-science as the expression of mere ignorance, nor primarily as a grass-roots movement. In fact, anti-science has more to do with political affiliation and acculturation than with education. Beating it, says Krekó, requires providing people with critical skills – one of which is knowing when to listen.

Anyone who doesn’t follow German Twitter closely may not have noticed the controversy towards the end of last year prompted by an article by Jürgen Habermas published by Eurozine partner Blätter für deutsche und internationale Politik.

In it, Habermas not only defended the legitimacy of temporary restrictions on rights in connection with lockdown measures but also argued that the German government had not gone far enough in observing its constitutional duty to prevent ‘the probable endangerment of the life and physical integrity of a foreseeable number of innocent citizens’.

Despite hyperbole about ‘the Habermas dictatorship’ and far-fetched comparisons with China, the liberal-libertarian reaction had some valid points. Particularly pertinent was the objection that, in legalizing the argument, Habermas had placed critics of Germany’s lockdown outside the constitutional spectrum.

The political theorist Peter Verovšek inspects the arguments – which are broadly relevant beyond the specificities of the German context – and argues that, far from evidencing late-career authoritarianism, Habermas’s position was consistent with his theory of the democratic public sphere.

This editorial is part of our 3/2022 newsletter. Subscribe to get the weekly updates about our latest publications and reviews of our partner journals.



Source link