Is literature beyond politics?

An interview with Olga Kvasnitska conducted by Milena Grechina on March 12, 2026.

DISCLAIMER: The interview contains graphic content that may upset readers. Moreover, it was conducted in Ukrainian so that the interviewee could express herself more freely. Thus, parts of the conversation have been edited or shortened, but none of the original meaning was changed.

Olga Kvasnitska is a professor of legal sciences, the head of the public organisation, the Institute of Urban Development, a member of the Odesa City Council in the 7^th and 8^th convocations, a member of the coordination council for the protection of cultural heritage, and the interviewee’s mother. Her daughter, and the author of this blog, Milena Grechina, is a master’s student at Maastricht University and a research intern at Contested Histories. Unlike the contestation of political figures’ statues, the monuments of writers look much more nuanced. Many still see literature and arts as being apolitical, but is that so? Maybe in a utopian world, but not in Odesa. In the coastal city of Ukraine, where Russian poet Alexander Pushkin stayed for a year, the first monument to him was erected in the city centre in 1889 to honour his work and his connection to Odesa. This relationship, however, has since been used by Russians (in any State form) to enforce the Russian view over the strong link between Russian culture and Odesa, as well as to justify their thirst to ‘free’ and ‘protect’ the city from Ukrainian influence through the force of invasion. But ever since the full-scale invasion in 2022, Ukrainian activists no longer see Pushkin as a poet but as an ideology used to feed Russian neo-empirical myths and propaganda.

In the interview with Olga Kvasnitska, we will discuss her understanding of Pushkin’s legacy in the Ukrainian context, both before and after the full-scale invasion. We’ll cover the monument’s connection to the UNESCO World Heritage site, local politicians’ manipulations during the bust’s removal, and the remembrance of the decolonisation process to fill Ukrainian space with Ukrainian values, traditions, and identities.

Milena Grechina (MG): What was your relation to Pushkin’s literature before the full-scale invasion?

Olga Kvasnitska (OK): I would like to say here that before the occupation of Crimea and the hostilities in the Donetsk and Luhansk regions, I did not analyse Russian literature, including Pushkin, as I did after the occupation of Crimea. But even after that, I did not fully realise the colonial nature of Russian literature. Why? Because I studied in a Russified Soviet school, where everything Ukrainian was erased, and of course, we were taught Russian literature. In general, both the school curriculum and the city cultural space imposed on us for years the image of Pushkin exclusively as a brilliant writer, as the sun of poetry, a storyteller. After all, I even demanded that children, even you at the age of 5, study Pushkin’s poems. I did not teach you Lesya Ukrainka’s poem ‘Boyaryna’ or other Ukrainian writers because I absolutely did not question this ideology that was imposed by the Russian Federation and the Soviet Union when I was still a little schoolgirl. Therefore, I perceived this literature as part of my own cultural heritage. And this was the result of a century of work by the Russian and Soviet Empires, which purposefully did everything to make us, Ukrainians, understand that for us, Russian culture is the foundation and Ukrainian identity is something marginal.

I am now atoning for not having understood that, even though I am supposedly an intellectual person, I read a lot, I am a teacher, but I did not realise […] I was not looking.

MG: How has this understanding changed since 2022?OK: After the full-scale invasion, I realised this gap in understanding my Ukrainian identity. I began to wonder why Cossack Hetman (a political title from Central and Eastern Europe) Ivan Mazepa was always shown as a traitor, and why Pushkin wrote so badly about Mazepa in his work ‘Poltava.’ Gradually, I realised that all the history and literature that I studied in Soviet schools were manipulations and lies. Because Mazepa turned out to be an incredibly cool leader, modern for that time, developed architecture, built churches, raised education to another level, was educated, knew a bunch of languages, and even dressed cool! He was European and was made a traitor. In his poem ‘Poltava,’ Pushkin demonises the Ukrainian leader, the hetman, branding him as a traitor, and at the same time glorifies Peter the First, who killed children and women, burning and slaughtering all the inhabitants of Baturyn, Mazepa’s residence.

MG: Is it that his presence in space erases everything Ukrainian and monopolises the cultural space of Odesa?

OK: Yes, monopolises and dominates. Why are we still searching for ourselves now? Why, being a Ukrainian speaker, did I switch to Russian when I moved to Odesa? Because it was normal here, because the Ukrainian language was erased here, because Lesya Ukrainka was made invisible. Everyone asks how many times she was in Odesa. Well, wait a second. It should not be measured by how many times, but by her position, her work for the benefit of Ukrainian statehood.

MG: Statues are often perceived as something eternal, and most of the people who are against Pushkin’s removal preach that ‘history needs to be honored.’ What do you think about it?

OK: The argument ‘history needs to be honoured’ in this context is a constant manipulation launched by the Russian Federation, because the installation of the Pushkin monument (in 1889) actually destroyed the historical plan of the city’s architects. The ensemble of the seaside boulevard, designed and built in 1820-30s, was a masterpiece of classicism by the famous architects Francesco Boffa, Karl Pothier, Giorgio Torricelli, and others. And it was designed as an open space of the sea facade with a free perspective. No monument was planned for the site where the Pushkin bust now stands. A free space was planned there, so that the grandeur of the Odesa Stock Exchange building could be revealed, which is now the municipality building. Therefore, the appearance of Pushkin after around 50 years, in 1889, violated the architectural idea of ​​​​this square. Therefore, in my opinion, the dismantling of the bust of Pushkin is not the destruction of history, but the act of its restoration, on the contrary. It is a regeneration of the authentic environment that we lost because the monument appeared there. Therefore, history must be respected – I completely agree, but real, not imposed by the colonialists, not distorted so that Putin could tell at Valdai that because Pushkin is in Odesa, he must be ‘protected,’ justifying the invasion.

MG: Another interesting fact about the monument is that it’s located on the territory protected by UNESCO. I was really interested in the fact that the monument is now covered not only with wooden boards but also with advertising promoting the UNESCO World Heritage status of the historical centre of Odesa. Is it still standing like that?

OK: Yes.

MG: So everyone knows that Pushkin is behind those boards anyway. And this advertisement gave me a double impression. Firstly, it reminds and seems to divert attention to the historical centre of the city itself and its tourist value. I thought of people who are in favour of leaving the monument because of its tourist benefit, so maybe this calms people down. And secondly, it seems that this advertisement protects the monument: ‘This is a UNESCO territory – remember that.’ Therefore, I want to ask: How does this monument, located in a UNESCO World Heritage Site, complicate matters of removal or transportation?

OK: A large part of the Odesa city government, which remains pro-Russian, has been and continues to be concerned that Russian markers remain in the Odesa space. And now, when activists raise the issue of moving the Pushkin bust to a museum, like in a civilised society, the city government is covering it up by saying that this bust is located in the historical centre of Odesa, which is a UNESCO World Heritage Site, so it cannot be touched. This is another manipulation. UNESCO protects the outstanding universal value and authenticity of the territory, not imperial narratives. The value of our centre, as I have already explained, lies precisely in the unique architectural ensemble (of the historical centre of Odesa), and UNESCO protects its integrity. Pushkin was sculpted in violation of the intended architecture, so dismantling the bust and transferring it to a museum is not a destruction of heritage; it is a regeneration of the historical environment to its true European appearance. Pushkin is not a cultural heritage monument, and UNESCO protects the integrity of the site. 

According to international conventions that Ukraine has signed and become a member of, we have an obligation to notify the World Heritage Committee of any significant changes within the boundaries of this territory, that is, construction or excavation work. But now, local officials are using the UNESCO approval procedure for refusal, saying, ‘Oh, we can’t remove it because UNESCO has to allow us to do so, we have to wait for permission from Paris, and that takes a very long time,’ deliberately delaying the process of transferring it to the museum.

But the value of UNESCO is architecture, not ideology!

MG: What does it tell you about UNESCO’s legitimacy, especially since Russia is a part of the committee?

OK: Regarding Russia’s position in the UNESCO committee, I want to say that it was not completely expelled from UNESCO. It remains a member state of the organisation because to be completely expelled, it must be banished from the UN, which is naturally blocked. But in November 2023, Ukraine, together with its allies, won a historic diplomatic victory and, for the first time in history, Russia was, well, not re-elected to be correct, expelled from the UNESCO Executive Board. This is one of the institution’s key governing bodies. It is thanks to this that Ukraine managed to include Odesa on the heritage list, you know, which allows for support for reparations after the war. UNESCO cannot protect against missiles, but it will advocate in this process.

MG: What future do you see for this monument?

OK: The place of this monument is exclusively in the museum. We already have ideas to create an open-air museum in the park dedicated to the imperial and totalitarian past. And there, Pushkin would serve as a relic that would illustrate to all of us and our descendants how Russia uses monumental propaganda for the cultural occupation of our country, including Odesa.

MG: Ukrainian activists are often portrayed by Russian media as ‘barbaric’ or ‘uncivilised’ whenever the statues marking Russian culture are being contested. What does it tell the world about the Ukrainian position in the process of de-russification of its public spaces? And what does it tell us about the Russian propaganda that justifies the illegal invasion of an independent country?

OK: Moving the bust to a museum is not vandalism. By rejecting this culture, Ukrainians are not demonstrating barbarism, but the nation’s maturity. This is evidence of the process of decolonisation that we are currently going through.

We do not burn books. Pushkin, here (shows the book on screen). I leave it in the library; I do not burn it. I keep it for study, analysis and understanding of the threats that Russia poses in any of its manifestations. Russia is trying to portray us as barbarians in order to hide its barbarism. Because when they enter our territories, they burn our Ukrainian books and destroy our monuments using the ‘great culture of Russia’ as a shield to justify an illegal invasion, which is a classic method of empire.

MG: If the decision about the future of the monument were your responsibility, what would be your decision?

OK: I would be guided exclusively by facts, documents, the logic of Odesa’s development, and this is a clear algorithm – the civilised transfer of Pushkin’s bust to the museum. A person who had been destroying Ukrainian statehood through his works cannot stand on the main square of the Ukrainian city. Removing the statue will help in the restoration and return to Odesa’s free perspective. I would further introduce educational activities regarding the topic, because everyone should realise why we are doing this.

MG: After the statue is moved to the open-air museum, how do we remember the activism against Pushkin?

OK: We need to report on this long struggle for the right to be, for the right to have a dominant Ukrainian-European culture in Odesa’s space. That is why we need to create a museum of imperial-colonisation history, because we are still in this post-Soviet and post-colonial syndrome. And tour guides who will tell about these places and the struggle are also needed, who should not tell about Pushkin and Catherine the Second everywhere through the prism of Russian narratives, but talk about the struggle, truth, values, and finding oneself.

About the Author

Milena Grechina is a master’s student at Maastricht University and a research intern at Contested Histories. She is the daughter of Olga Kvasnitska, a professor of legal sciences, the head of the public organisation, the Institute of Urban Development, a member of the Odesa City Council in the 7th and 8th convocations, a member of the coordination council for the protection of cultural heritage, and the interviewee’s mother. 

Images

Unknown author. (2014). Lesya Ukrainka portrait crop. In Wikimedia Commons. https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?search=Lesya+Ukrainka&title=Special%3AMediaSearch&type=image

Wadco2. (2015). Bust of Pushkin in Odessa. In Wikimedia Commons. https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?search=pushkin+odesa&title=Special%3AMediaSearch&type=image

Zemlyukov, S. (2024). Ivan Mazepa (Portrait, 1840s, Stepan Zemlyukov). In Wikimedia Commons. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Ivan_Mazepa_(Portrait,_1840s,_Stepan_Zemlyukov).jpg

The views expressed in this blog are solely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of EuroClio, the Contested Histories Initiative or any of its affiliates. Neither EuroClio nor the Contested Histories Initiative can be held responsible for them.