A conflict seizes upon its surroundings, compelling observers to take sides—everyone “takes a stand.” The path to peace? Recognizing each other, then accepting each other, and, ultimately, understanding each other. Here are some excerpts of responses we received from readers:
“Finally!” I thought while reading the interview with Serhii Kopyl. I was then disappointed with the issue on multiperspectivism. It is true that only the individual can “be free” or develop when heading in that direction. But to do so, they need the conditions that allow for it. Those conditions do not exist when a neighboring great power seeks to seize control by military might. In that case, resistance can only be collective and military in nature and must be concentrated on the national border—with the goal that, within those borders, language, culture, political constitution, membership in alliances, and so on be determined by the people who live there and wish to live there—and through processes that they themselves perceive as legitimate and lawful. Yes, we want to transcend nationalism, avoid writing myths of heroes, and foster individuality. That is the task in Middle Europe. The Ukrainians are currently facing different questions, and different answers are to be given. It is said that Russia was promised “by handshake” that NATO would not expand eastward. In any treaty, exactly what is written therein is agreed upon—no more and no less. And NATO is not pushing its borders eastward; it only admits countries that expressly wish to join—and even then, not always, as seen in Ukraine in 2008. “The (Russian) fear that Ukraine was slipping rapidly into the Western orbit [. . .],” writes Louis Defèche. If the people of Ukraine find the Western model of society more attractive than the one prevailing in Russia, should we perceive that as “slipping” simply because Russia interprets it that way? Ralph-Guido Günther [author’s additions in parenthesis]
I am writing from Australia, but I was active for many years in the U.S. as a representative of the Anthroposophical Society. The most emphatic statements that Steiner repeats time and again concern the truth and the fact that untruth is tantamount to soul murder. He then adds that it does not matter whether the speaker believes they are telling the truth. That is why I was astonished when I read the editorial: “It is estimated that over two million soldiers—both men and women—are involved in Russia’s war of aggression against Ukraine; over one million combatants and civilians have been wounded, killed, or gone missing during the four-plus years of conflict—three million voices, each of which deserves to be heard” [English Issue 2026/20]. There is no war of aggression against Ukraine. The evidence for this has been available for years. There are now dozens of detailed reports, including one by Angela Merkel (www.yahoo.com/news/putin-disappointed-merkels-words-minsk-140859136.html). Perhaps you are not aware of this. If that is the case, public statements on Ukraine are all the more misleading. Bill Camp
Thank you for this authentic and insightful report from the view of someone who was actually there and personally affected. But the fact remains that this and other wars have become a cynical business model, generating indescribable profits through speculation in arms and other goods that support the war. I see this as the real reason why this war won’t end. Wiebke D.
I fully understand the human value of the testimonies described in the interview with Serhii Kopyl, and I do not wish to relativize either the suffering caused by the war or the interviewee’s personal experience. It is precisely for this reason, however, that I would like to express a certain unease regarding the editorial decision and the overall tone of the text. Although the article presents itself as a personal testimony, in several passages it takes on a strongly political and moral character, with a clearly polarized portrayal of the conflict. Certain formulations and historical analogies carry the risk of transforming a cultural and spiritual institution such as the Goetheanum into a space that is perceived as part of a contemporary geopolitical narrative. My concern is not with the fact that a Ukrainian experience is being given a voice—which is entirely legitimate and important—but rather with the risk that the language and categories of anthroposophy will be linked to one-sided political interpretations of the present. What I personally seek in anthroposophy is an impulse toward a deeper understanding of the human being, toward the capacity for inner openness, discernment, and differentiation, especially in times of conflict and strong social polarization. I fear an increasing politicization of the anthroposophical community, with the risk of losing readers and researchers who wish to preserve a spiritual space free from contemporary political partisanship. I share these reflections with respect and sincere interest in the future of the anthroposophical movement and the cultural dialogue embodied by the Goetheanum. Cristiano Frassetto
Rudolf Steiner was a sharp critic of Woodrow Wilson’s 14-Point Plan, which was one of the cornerstones of devastating nationalism. Wilson’s ideas are the nose ring of the United States, with which Europe has been dragged through the circus of contemporary history—and its catastrophes—for over a hundred years. I can recommend to you and all other contemporaries the lectures designated as GA 173 a, b, c [The Karma of Untruthfulness, vols. 1 & 2]. In these lectures, Steiner examined the underlying causes that led to World War I. He called his method “historical symptomatology.” Today’s press coverage, in particular, serves as a smokescreen against objectivity and spiritual depth. So anyone who introduces an interview with the phrase “Russian war of aggression” is working no differently than the mainstream press. This narrative resembles the spirit that held Germany solely responsible for World War I and led to the Treaty of Versailles. We know from history how things unfolded as a result of that one-sided condemnation. As an editor of the Goetheanum—and of German origin, in particular—the utmost caution is called for. Here, too, I recommend a book by the English historian Christopher Clark, The Sleepwalkers: How Europe Went to War in 1914 (2012). This examination of the causes of the outbreak of World War I supports Rudolf Steiner’s historical reflections. We cannot afford to be sleepwalkers in Europe. The civil war in Ukraine began in 2014 at the latest. We have been in a state of open war for twelve years. Let us find a way in our minds to begin ending the war. Rudolf Steiner’s spiritual science and his vigilance can be of help in this regard. Europe cannot exist without Russia and Ukraine. The statements by Louis Defèche in a later issue dated May 21 [Eng. edn., June 3], titled “Multiperspectivism: A Requirement for Seeking Peace,” support and complement the concern expressed here. Tobias Langscheid
I consider the title “Multiperspectivism: A Requirement for Seeking Peace” to be misleading. It refers to multiperspectivism but then describes only two perspectives, one of which is covered only very briefly. The Ukrainian perspective is completely omitted. Ukraine is an independent state that existed even before Russia came into being. Since Russia’s inception, Ukraine has been under pressure from it. Following numerous attempts by the Tsarist Empire in the 19th century to annex Ukrainian territory (“New Russia”), Ukraine was occupied by the Red Army in the 1920s and forcibly integrated into the Soviet Union. Since 1990, Ukraine has once again been striving for true independence. This endeavor has been massively undermined by Russia in a variety of ways, particularly through the sabotage of the Ukrainian economy from the very beginning, the installation of leaders who represent Russian interests, and the suppression of independence movements using KGB methods—and all this in an independent country! It is therefore hardly astonishing that Ukraine is seeking every possible form of external support to emancipate itself from its overpowering “big brother.” In addition to this Ukrainian perspective, there is also the fourth perspective of international law and the UN Charter. Ukraine is an independent country and has the right to determine its own destiny. Russia’s actions are in clear violation of international law. From the perspective of international law, there is no justification for them. Most of the article proceeds on the assumption that Yalta presents the authoritative foundation for the order of the multipolar world. However, this system essentially takes into account only the Russian and U.S. perspectives (with a U.S. ally sitting at the table but having no real influence). Since its inception, it has shown that it primarily serves the interests of the U.S. and Russia and has enabled or covered up numerous atrocities on both sides, while international law has been largely ignored. Christian Weinberger
“Multiperspectives”, if it should lead one to think in terms of moral equivalence, will sadly not be a basis for promoting peace. It would only compound the pain currently suffered by Ukrainians and invalidate the injustice of their suffering. There must be accountability as part of a multiperspective way of thinking as well a clear recognition—not a denial—of both victomhood and the initiation and perpetration of violence. Let me provide an analogy: a man who has raped a woman and continues to rape and violently attack her may be understandable and explainable in terms of “multiperspectives.” He may himself have been abused as a child, mistreated by his mother, and so forth. His is a valid perspective. The woman he is attacking may have dressed and acted in such a way as to give out ambiguous signals. But to suggest that she brought the violence and violation that she is suffering upon herself is more or less the view that has been expressed by some anthroposophical and non-anthroposophical books and articles about Ukraine. This only pours salt on the wounds of the genuine victims—the Ukrainian people. The acts of violence are in this case a calculated choice that continues to be made. Daily. NATO has not forced Putin to violently attack Ukraine. He was not and is not acting out of desperation or “self defence.” At best we can compare Russia to Germany in the 1920s and 30s. Humiliated and mistreated by the victors of WWI, Hitler was able to exploit and fill the moral vacuum. We can better understand Germany then and Russia now through “multiperspectives.” But we must never, in doing so, justify or apologise for acts of criminality and violence. Above all we must hear and understand the voices of the genuine victims, of Ukrainians, with love and compassion. We need to deeply and truly understand Ukraine and Ukrainians. As distinct from Russia and as distinct from “the West”. We need to understand the victims here, at least as much if not more so, as we need to understand and sympathise with Russia and Russians. Alex Fornal
In recent years, war for me—as someone who lives in Zaporizhzhia, Ukraine—has not been a theory of international relations, geopolitical concepts, or a discussion about NATO expansion. For me, it is a daily reality. It is nights spent listening to the sounds of drones and missiles, constant air raid alerts, and fear for my child and loved ones. It is destroyed homes, people killed, wounded children, and a life lived in constant tension. It seems to me that one of the main problems of the modern world is that it is becoming increasingly incapable of deep human compassion. We have learned to exchange information quickly, but we are not always capable of truly feeling another person’s pain. As long as the world remains silent in the face of others’ suffering, as long as indifference becomes the norm and human solidarity weakens, military conflicts will not diminish but only intensify. Peace begins with respect for a people’s right to security, freedom, and self-determination. That is why, for me, the path to peace lies not only through political decisions but also through the awakening of human conscience, the capacity for compassion, and responsibility for one another. Alona Permiakova, Ukraine
The threat to Ukraine’s independence posed by Russia’s political power structure has existed since the collapse of the USSR. Propaganda serving Russia’s interests is being disseminated in all areas of social life in Ukraine. Boris Yeltsin’s remark, addressed in the early 1990s to Leonid Kravchuk, Ukraine’s first president—“Do you really believe that Ukraine will preserve its independence?”—was prophetic in the context of Russia’s rejection of Ukraine’s ethnic independence. In this sense, it is possible that John Herz’s concept of the “security dilemma” is relevant as a specific model for the political response of a state power system to a perceived threat to its spheres of influence. In this sense, the danger that Russia would resort to force if its interests were disregarded grew and escalated in 2014 into military aggression and the beginning of the occupation of Ukrainian territories. This political measure triggered a conflict not only at the level of political authority, but also at the level of communication between the populations of both states. Ideological propaganda began to destroy the bonds of friendship and kinship between the people of both nations who are closely related genetically. Negative historical experiences in ethnic relations were increasingly addressed in historical discourse, leading to heightened interest among Ukrainians in the “dark spots of history” in the political relations between the two nations—and, as it turned out, to completely different realities in the interpretation of historical facts. The divide between the two peoples—who speak the same language fluently—continues to widen. To grasp the dynamics of the relationship between the two peoples, a profound analysis of cultural and historical events is required. Those involved carry this dynamic of psychological reality within themselves in the deep layers of the unconscious and at the existential level of the formation of consciousness; what is happening in the present—the true reality—is a product of this dynamic.
At the same time, the question arises as to how it was possible that, in the name of the geopolitical ambitions of those in power, such far-reaching arbitrariness was permitted in Russia’s approach toward Ukraine—an arbitrariness that has crossed the boundaries of the highest spiritual value, namely, the value of human life—which is increasingly fueling mistrust in the effectiveness of international institutions as guarantors of compliance with the rules of the established world order. In this sense, the war in Ukraine has once again brought the issues of “ethnic independence” and “value orientations on the geopolitical stage” to the forefront. Where current events are being analyzed, many experts indicate that prejudices and preconceptions—of a philosophical, religious, and ideological nature—as well as a tendency toward false analogies—play an important role. This is more of an attempt to objectify the interpretation of historical facts, which naturally entails many “pitfalls” in the search for truth. The prerequisites for the possibility of war are created on an ideological level; considerations regarding the necessity of arming oneself, strengthening the military, and expanding arms production will lead to the realization of these plans in the future, with any carefully staged provocation serving as a pretext. The direction in which thinking evolves under wartime conditions—which underlies the understanding of possible solutions to military conflicts—will determine how the world will develop in the immediate future over the next two generations, beginning with those born during the war years. To understand the nature of war requires an insider’s perspective free from prejudice and psychological distortions. Yevgen Volchenko, Ukraine
Responses from the Editorial Staff
No one on this editorial staff, and probably none of our readers, fails to empathize with the destiny of the war-torn civilian populations of this world. It is the natural capacity of our hearts. For me, having to choose a side does not seem to be in accord with the nature of the heart. And yet, we need judgments, values, and decisions that allow us to live together in this world as peacefully as possible. Being conscious of people’s contexts and their developments is just as important as compassion. Showing how those affected live, and recognizing how thought patterns, history, and economic practices turn them into victims—these things come together in the heart. The heart is both the concrete earthly and the spiritual, at the same time. Decisions of the heart arise from a will that lies beyond arguments, wounds, traumas, polarity, and opposition. They can probably begin only in the smallest of deeds, but therein they may unfold their greatest impact. Gilda Bartel
Adopting a multiperspective approach does not mean presenting “all” perspectives every time. One can only speak from a specific perspective. My text on the theme of multiperspectivism was just one perspective. What matters is being conscious of one’s own perspective and the existence of other perspectives. To anyone who got the impression that my article represents a “Russian” point of view, I would like to point out that it is based almost exclusively on statements by recognized American experts. The truly crucial question is: do we want peace? For me, personally, the answer is more than clear. It is also clear that this comes with a dialogue that can sometimes be difficult. Louis Defèche
What I seek to embrace with my thinking are breadth and depth. Breadth brings joy; depth gives meaning. Life calls out for breadth: its diversity and boundlessness are captivating! Openness is the virtue of breadth. The spirit calls for depth: its light encourages us to descend. Clarity is the virtue of depth. If I venture into breadth without depth, I lose my form, my identity; if I venture into depth without breadth, I lose mobility and become rigid. Our times call for us to unite breadth and depth—to unite life and spirit. In my inner workshop, I understand Russia’s claim to Crimea which violates international law: Crimea was ceded to Ukraine when it belonged to the Soviet Union and is part of Russian identity. That is what breadth tells me. To speak out against Russia’s crime of escalating from politics to violence and bringing suffering to millions in Ukraine and Russia, to condemn the abduction of children and the bombing of cities, requires depth. Through depth, the values of nonviolence and freedom shine forth—human values, values that transcend breadth and life. Wolfgang Held
