Revolutionary Ukraine: A History and Politics of Hope

The Nanovic Institute for European Studies

Available on-demand

In an era scarred by “human wrongs,” how does a nation sustain an indomitable spirit? This session explores Ukraine’s transformation from Soviet subjects to sovereign historical actors. By redefining hope as a defiant, collective pursuit of justice rather than passive wishful thinking, our panel offers a profound roadmap for democratic resilience and global solidarity.

Speakers include:

George Liber, Professor Emeritus of History at the University of Alabama Birmingham
Fr. Yuriy Shchurko, Dean of the Faculty of Philosophy and Theology at the Ukrainian Catholic University
A. James McAdams, William M. Scholl Professor of International Affairs at the University of Notre Dame
Sophia Wilson, Associate Professor of Political Science at Southern Illinois University Edwardsville
Emily Channell-Justice, Director, Temerty Contemporary Ukraine Program at the Ukrainian Research Institute, Harvard University

Revolutions of Hope: Resilience and Recovery in Ukraine is a collaboration between Notre Dame’s Nanovic Institute, part of the Keough School of Global Affairs, and Ukrainian Catholic University (UCU). The conference, hosted at the University of Notre Dame in March 2025, focused on the positive and corrective response to this destruction, exploring reasons for hope, sources of hope, and the politics and ethics of hope in Ukraine. How is hope powerful or even revolutionary? How does it encourage resilience and recovery? And, above all, how can we build and promote the integral development of hope in Ukraine? The conference explored the concept, dynamics, and practices of hope through keynote addresses, panel discussions, the arts, and liturgical observances. For more information visit the event website.

Co-sponsors included:

The concluding plenary session of the “Revolutionary Ukraine” conference serves as a testament to the enduring partnership between the University of Notre Dame’s Nanovic Institute for European Studies and the Ukrainian Catholic University (UCU). Chaired by Professor James McAdams, the session moved beyond theoretical abstraction to define hope as a tangible, historical, and theological force. The discussion centered on the premise that Ukrainian resilience is not accidental, but rather the culmination of a multi-decade evolution of agency and identity.

Historical Foundations and the “Leap into the Unknown”

Presenting the research of historian George Liber, specifically his paper “Moving toward Independence and Decolonization, 1985–2004,” Professor McAdams detailed the pivotal shift in the Ukrainian psyche. He argued that history is often propelled by “shocks”—the mismanagement of the Chernobyl disaster and the collapse of the Soviet social contract—that force societies to abandon political inertia. These events compelled Ukrainians to transition from “subjects of history” to “historical actors,” engaging in a “leap into the unknown” to create a new normal. This period initiated a profound decolonization of the mind, where the rejection of a Russia-centered world became a prerequisite for sovereignty.

Theological Dimensions of “Shalom,” “Mishpat,” and “Sedaka”

Father Yuriy Shchurko, Dean of Theology at UCU, provided a spiritual framework for this resilience by contrasting the “secular modern story” with the “biblical story” of restoration. Central to his analysis was a triad of Hebrew concepts: Sedaka (righteousness or God’s order), Mishpat (justice), and Shalom (peace). He argued that Shalom is not merely the absence of conflict but a state of wholeness and completeness that results only when Sedaka and Mishpat are established. Father Yuriy proposed an “eschatology of cooperation,” suggesting that Ukrainian hope is an active participation in restoring this divine order on earth.

Sociological Solidarity and Self-Organization

Dr. Emily Channell-Justice examined the sociological mechanisms of this hope through samoorhanizatsiya (self-organization). She highlighted the Euromaidan-era slogan, “I’m a Drop in the Ocean,” which empowered individuals to contribute unique skills to a collective cause. This concept of individual agency within a massive collective effort mirrors Father Yuriy’s “eschatology of cooperation.” A primary example is the Varta v Likarni (hospital guards), where volunteers protected injured protesters they did not know. This horizontal comradeship between strangers allows Ukrainian society to bypass failed state institutions, creating a resilient social fabric that has sustained the nation through the full-scale invasion.

The Imperative of Justice and Human Rights

Professor Sophia Wilson bridged the gap between human rights and “human wrongs.” Analyzing the systematic nature of Russian war crimes, she argued that hope in Ukraine is inextricably linked to the demand for a “system of justice.” Using the example of Soviet-era dissidents and Maidan activists, she noted that Ukrainians have consistently rejected amnesties or “fake peace” in favor of absolute legal and moral accountability. For Ukraine, justice is not a post-war luxury but a prerequisite for any lasting peace.

Conclusion: A Point of No Return

These diverse perspectives converge on a singular truth: the struggle for decolonization has reached a “point of no return.” By reclaiming and elevating suppressed historical narratives—such as the Holodomor and the Crimean Tatar deportation—Ukrainians have fundamentally rewired the national psyche. This rejection of imperial versions of history makes re-colonization a psychological impossibility. The idea of an independent Ukraine is no longer a “minority faith” but an immutable pillar of national identity.

How does the panel define “active hope” compared to “wishful thinking”?

Drawing on the philosophy of Václav Havel, the panel defined hope not as the conviction that something will turn out well, but as the certainty that something makes sense, regardless of how it turns out. Unlike wishful thinking, which is passive, active hope is a defiant effort to create a better future in solidarity with others, demanding a resistance to the status quo even when a successful outcome is not guaranteed.

What role does “self-organization” play when state institutions fail?
Self-organization (samoorhanizatsiya) allows citizens to assume the functions of the state when institutions are paralyzed. By focusing on immediate, local agency, Ukrainians have built a culture where political activism is detached from formal parties. This horizontal solidarity ensures that humanitarian aid and civil protection continue regardless of the state’s immediate capacity, creating a “bottom-up” democratic resilience.

How does the theological concept of “Shalom” inform political demands for justice?

Theologically, Shalom (peace/wholeness) is the direct result of Sedaka (righteousness/order) and Mishpat (justice). This framework suggests that peace cannot exist as a standalone political agreement if it ignores the “human wrongs” committed. For Ukrainians, this translates into a non-negotiable political requirement: a “just peace” must include the adjudication of crimes and the restoration of rights.

Why is “decolonizing the mind” essential for post-Soviet identity?

Decolonization is the process of decoupling citizenship from the Russian-centered world. By reclaiming historical truth and rejecting imperial narratives, Ukrainians transform from passive subjects into sovereign actors. This process serves as a critical model for other post-colonial or post-authoritarian states, proving that “decolonizing the mind” is a necessary prerequisite for making independent political choices and sustaining a functional democracy.

What is the significance of global solidarity, such as the Baltic states’ contributions?

The session highlighted that the defense of Ukraine is perceived as a universal stand for democratic dignity. Nations like Estonia lead this effort, contributing over 1% of their GDP and promising a quarter of all funds earmarked for their own defense to Ukraine. This level of contribution underscores that the struggle is not merely a regional conflict but a global defense of a “system of justice” against imperial aggression.

“Hope is an active effort to create a better future in solidarity with others in a hostile environment.” — George Liber
“Peace… is not simply the absence of war; it’s a positive notion with its own content of wholeness, health, and completeness.” — Father Yuriy Shchurko
“The nation is always conceived as a deep horizontal comradeship… Solidarity between strangers was what helped set these protests apart.” — Emily Channell-Justice
“History is complex… but it’s also stubborn and it teaches us that any Empire or any authoritarian state… if they attempt to break Ukraine or oppress Ukrainians, they bring their own demise.” — Sophia Wilson
“The performance of Ukraine’s engaged citizens over the past four decades has crossed a point of no return… an independent Ukraine will not be cancelled.” — George Liber

Revolutionary Ukraine: A History and Politics of Hope

More Like This

“Slow Peace” and the Power of Civil Society

Co-Creating Peace

Business on the Frontlines: Resilience and Adaptability in Times of Turmoil

The Political Life of the Novel

The Nuclear Threshold

Haunting as Inheritance

Hope in the Headlines?: Truth and Decolonization in the Ukrainian Media Landscape

Hope on the Ground: Lived Resilience during the War in Ukraine

Launch of the Kroc Institute’s Tenth Report on Colombian Peace Accord Implementation

On Love, Loss, and Ancestral Lands

Subscribe to our Newsletter