Thinking together with Yevhen Golovakha

Ihor Yakovenko's YouTube channel has published, under the title “Thinking together with Yevhen Golovakha”, an interview with the Director of the Institute of Sociology of the National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine, Corresponding Member of the NAS of Ukraine, Doctor of Philosophical Sciences, Professor Yevhen Ivanovych Golovakha.

Introducing his guest as a sociologist, philosopher, psychologist and social scientist who has been observing Ukraine closely for several decades, and thus as one of the most interesting people to talk to, the interviewer opened with the question: “How would you characterise the present state of Ukrainian society?”

In his answer the professor combined two factors affecting the mood of Ukrainians: “a certain fatigue from the war and a strong fatigue from an unprecedentedly hard winter, which we came through with honour. The slight decline in people's mood and adaptive resources after the unprecedented upsurge of 2022 stabilised in 2025, as our institute's surveys have shown.”

Describing Ukraine's adaptability and resilience during the full-scale invasion as phenomenal, the interviewer noted that on the international happiness index Ukraine is in the second hundred, whereas Israel, which is also at war, ranks eighth on that list. In reply the sociologist drew attention to the complexity of the methodology behind the international happiness index. A survey by colleagues at KIIS using direct questions, by contrast, shows that two thirds of respondents feel happy in unhappy circumstances. And that helps to preserve adaptability, social activity, social integration and the capacity for concerted action. There are, even so, certain losses in how people feel about themselves, which is understandable in wartime.

Noting that in Russia's information space signs of fatigue, confusion and frustration with the authorities show through the demonstrative cheerfulness ever more often, reinforced by the campaign there against the internet and Telegram that affects everyone, the interviewer asked whether his guest detected similar moods in Ukraine's information space.

In response the professor pointed to a fundamental difference: Ukrainians do not sacralise their authorities as Russians do, but treat them critically, and negatively where some of their actions deserve it. Such moods are therefore not characteristic, though a certain part of our citizens may share them. Ukrainians' attitude towards political parties has traditionally been cool, as recent surveys by the country's sociologists confirm. The performance of Ukraine's leading politicians, the president included, is rated positively by some respondents during the war, but one may expect that at future elections the better chances will lie with new politicians who came to the fore during the war rather than with the old leaders of familiar parties. So while this exhausting war continues, no open struggle is being waged against the authorities or against the president as a certain centre symbolising Ukraine on the international stage, and even his opponents are restraining their disagreement.

Recalling the scholar's long-standing idea of the ambivalence of Ukrainian mass consciousness, the interviewer asked whether that feature persists and can still be felt. The professor pointed to the historical roots of such political ambivalence, when for most of their history Ukrainians were forced to live under foreign rule, adapting to it while regarding it with hostility. At the same time each generation had no choice and built its lives and careers under that foreign rule. Hence the origins of ambivalence, which is characteristic, moreover, of all the national formations of the Russian and Soviet empires, the so-called republics. Since the beginning of the full-scale invasion the moods of ambivalence have diminished, though they remain. While critical of the authorities, Ukrainians are nonetheless, according to surveys, overwhelmingly minded to take part in future post-war elections. While overwhelmingly supporting democracy in Ukraine, nearly half of them at the same time believe that we do not need a multi-party system. This too is a manifestation of ambivalent consciousness. But one can say with confidence that Ukrainians have overcome geopolitical ambivalence, the majority supporting a European vector of development for Ukraine and integration into Euro-Atlantic structures.

The readiness of the European Union and NATO to admit Ukraine is a very difficult question given their reluctance and unpreparedness for direct conflict with Putin's regime. Ukrainians, for their part, are determined not to give ground in a direct war with rashism and are heroically defending their right to exist as a free nation and to develop their state independently. Russia's imperial mentality does not allow it to admit its mistakes, including the tragic historical mistake of the full-scale war against Ukraine, which is inevitably leading Russia towards autarky and a tightening of the screws at home. Manifestations of social madness give no grounds so far to hope for rational steps from Putin's regime.

Asked what had surprised him of late, the professor replied that, for all the difficulty of the situation, Ukrainians — including the staff of the Institute, colleagues generally, the country's scholars and their families, thousands and millions of people across the country — have proved capable of preserving a normal life in the abnormal conditions of war: of living, working and living through this optimistic tragedy with dignity.

The interview with the leader of Ukraine's academic sociology showed that the staff of the Institute of Sociology and all Ukrainian sociologists keep a finger on the pulse of social processes, understand the patterns of Ukraine's historical development deeply and are ready to provide a research basis for the political and administrative decisions the state's governing institutions now face.

The full interview:

Watch the video on YouTube