"Talking about the Ukrainian local church is a dispute about what makes a country a country, and citizens a citizen. Moreover, it is a conversation about the boundaries of personal and collective. There are two main approaches to this issue. Inhabitants of one flank believe that there are no collective identities. That personal freedoms are unshakable even in the conditions of war. That any attempts by the state to go beyond the role of the tax collector and night watchman are unjustified. Inhabitants of the other flank are convinced that the state is obliged to defend its borders. And that border pillars can be very different - including media and church. Especially if the neighboring state uses the media and the church as instruments of ideological exports. Supporters of the first approach are convinced that the best recipe for the emancipation of the country is the space of freedom and financial well-being. Supporters of the second believe that without an ideological atlanta, the sky may well collapse. The funny thing is that both camps are right. Ukraine fell into a divided agenda. On the one hand, the set of our values ??is determined by the figure of our opponent. To confront Russia means to confront all that is raised in Russia on the banners. We are doomed to be liberals - simply because this ideology is denied by Moscow. We are doomed to inherit democratic approaches - simply because we consider ourselves part of the European solar system. On the other hand, our value set determines the war. Which invariably awakens the right agenda in society. The very one in which collective identity is more important than private freedom. Because only during the war the state can take a citizen, disguise it as a soldier and send to the trenches to protect the general and collective at the cost of his personal and personal. Therefore, we are doomed to a value-based doublethink. We aspire not to be like Russia - and we abandon its ideological contour. And, at the same time, we are trying not to lose the war - and therefore draw our own identity lines. Any of the two variables can not be extracted from this equation. And here it is important to take into account one important detail. The whole current war - it originally goes for identity. In this sense, any comparison with Israel is initially lame. Because the Jews had no illusions about what would happen if they lost in the war. And in the Ukrainian version, the plug for the options sounds different. "We want to be Ukrainians - they want to see us as little-nosed". And in this dichotomy there are many options for compromise. Therefore, the entire Ukrainian revision of symbols is nothing more than demarcation of the border.

The boundaries between the "Russian" and "Ukrainian" worlds. The very boundary that thirty years ago did not exist in nature. The very border that, from 91st year, consistently shifted from west to east, from Lviv to Donetsk. And it's not even whether Ukraine will be able to create a local church in the twenty-seventh year of its life. And not in what kind of corruption schemes continue to exist in the country in the fifth year of the war. The fact is that even in skepticism one can not be a dogmatist, "summed up Kazarin.