{"id":72784,"date":"2026-06-03T08:30:00","date_gmt":"2026-06-03T06:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/dasgoetheanum.com\/?p=72784"},"modified":"2026-06-03T22:12:48","modified_gmt":"2026-06-03T20:12:48","slug":"responses-to-the-interview-with-serhii-kopyl","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/dasgoetheanum.com\/en\/responses-to-the-interview-with-serhii-kopyl\/","title":{"rendered":"Responses to the Interview with Serhii Kopyl"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

Reflections and reader responses to the interview by Frode Barkved with Ukranian Serhii Kopyl, \u201cEverything I Own, I Carry with Me.\u201d<\/strong><\/span>1<\/sup><\/a><\/span> Winston Churchill wrote that the first casualty of war is truth, speech. Indeed, violence silences and polarizes. We welcome here an open conversation about this most terrible war in Europe since 1945.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n\n

Renatus Derbidge<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Questions We Can No Longer Avoid<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

To me, this article is among the best I have read in Das Goetheanum<\/em> in a long time. Not because I agree with everything it says. On the contrary, as I read, I found myself cringing inside time and again. On several occasions, I had the impression that statements were being made that were presented as self-evident anthroposophical truths, even though, in my view, they are by no means self-evident. Much of it seems to me to require interpretation; some parts are problematic, while others are deeply stimulating. In this article, something is happening that has become rare in today\u2019s public discourse: a person speaks honestly from their immediate experience. And the editorial team resists the temptation to intervene with commentary, to categorize everything, to weigh it all up, or to preemptively relativize it. This is precisely what creates space for thinking. Perhaps that is what good journalism is: not the precautionary neutralization of all tension, but the enabling of real thought.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

So, I do not wish to offer a political rebuttal or a moral condemnation in what follows. Nor is my aim to determine whether Serhii Kopyl understands anthroposophy correctly or incorrectly. The real point runs deeper. This specific example raises questions that extend far beyond this war and concern us all. At one point, Kopyl asks himself, \u201cWhat if you die?\u201d And he describes how the answer rose from the depths of his soul, \u201cThen I am ready to sacrifice my life for the freedom of Ukraine!\u201d Several fundamental questions immediately come to the fore. What does \u201csacrifice\u201d mean? What does \u201cfreedom\u201d mean? What does it even mean to give one\u2019s life \u201cfor\u201d something? And further: What exactly is this \u201csomething\u201d? A land? A culture? A language? A nation? A state? An idea? An identity? War forces such questions into an existential crisis. Things are spoken and experienced that usually remain hidden in ordinary life. The experiences described here are real. The intensity is real. The proximity to death is real. But precisely for that reason, we must carefully ask how we interpret these experiences.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In the interview, certain mental pictures are repeatedly brought up: that people become truly \u201cauthentic\u201d during war, that inward struggles take place there, that camaraderie, solidarity, and brotherhood emerge, that people rise above themselves. In some cases, this is explicitly linked to anthroposophy and the Michaelic struggle. For me, this is where we enter into difficult and complex questions. Extreme situations can evoke extraordinary states of consciousness: the stretching of time, intense presence, determination, the willingness to let go, the feeling of being guided, inward voices, solidarity, transcending oneself. All of these are real human experiences. But does it follow from this that war is spiritually fruitful? Or that it is a path of training? This is where a demythologization seems necessary to me. Not to devalue the experience but to keep its interpretation open. Similar experiences also occur outside of organized violence: in extreme natural situations, in artistic work, in meditation, in perception exercises, in flow, in selfless action, in life\u2019s borderline experiences in general. Perhaps the problem lies in the fact that we jump to conclusions about an experience\u2019s spiritual truth based on its intensity.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

But intensity alone is not a criterion for truth. The twentieth century saw countless forms of collective fervor: nationalism, revolutionary euphoria, religious fanaticism, mass movements, flags, anthems, and combat units. There, too, people experienced devotion, brotherhood, and a sense of purpose. This is precisely why it becomes dangerous when experiences of war are imbued with spiritual significance. It especially struck me that there was such a strong identification with the idea of a \u201cnation\u201d: \u201cmy country,\u201d \u201cthe freedom of Ukraine,\u201d defending the nation, flags, national anthems, camaraderie. Frankly, I notice how strongly a feeling of resistance rises within me against such statements. More interesting than this resistance, however, is the question: What is actually happening with the soul when it makes such identifications? As soon as a \u201cwe\u201d emerges with which I identify and from which I justify my actions, the question of freedom becomes difficult. Then I may no longer be acting out of my own ‘I\u2019 but out of a sense of identification.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Of course, one might immediately object: but a free person can join a \u201cwe\u201d of their own free will. Yes\u2014but that is precisely a choice that needs to be closely examined. How do I actually know whether I am acting freely? Here, the concepts of projection and identification, as they appear in the depth psychology of C. G. Jung, seem helpful to me. The ego\u2014or, in anthroposophical terms, the \u201clower \u2018I\u2019\u201d\u2014stabilizes itself through identifications. \u201cI am Ukrainian.\u201d \u201cI am Russian.\u201d \u201cI am German.\u201d \u201cI am European.\u201d \u201cI am an anthroposophist.\u201d All of these can be biographical or cultural facts. But they can also become self-images. And as soon as the self-image is threatened, conflict arises.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The true \u2018I\u2019, on the other hand, does not require such identifications in the same way. This does not mean that culture, language, or history are unimportant. On the contrary, we always live within specific languages, landscapes, spaces of memory, and cultural contexts. But the moral source of action does not necessarily lie with these. Rudolf Steiner\u2019s concept of freedom seems radical to me precisely in its description of how moral actions can arise only from a free \u2018I\u2019. And this free \u2018I\u2019 is not identical with nationality; not identical with language; not identical with culture; not identical with political groups; not even identical with one\u2019s own body. As soon as I identify primarily through external characteristics\u2014even through such intimate things as voice, health, origin, or cultural affiliation\u2014I run the risk of losing my true center. Then, I am no longer truly acting freely, not even when I am completely convinced that I am acting of my own free will.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Perhaps this is precisely where the difficulty lies: identification often feels like freedom. But through identification, outside interests, collective dynamics, historical forces, and political structures can exert their influence upon and through us without our realizing it. The modern nation-state is not a natural entity. It is, first and foremost, an administrative and legal structure. It is not unified with a people; not unified with a language; not unified with a cultural sphere. In Ukraine, in particular, it becomes clear how complexly these realities intertwine: Russian culture, Ukrainian culture, Russian-speaking Ukrainians, mixed family histories, multiple affiliations. Political borders do not neatly align with cultural realities. And yet, in war, all of this is emotionally entangled until it appears as a unified entity. Perhaps this is precisely where one of the great questions of our time regarding consciousness lies: that we constantly confuse culture, state, people, language, and identity.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

We face the same problem in Europe. For decades we have been taught to equate Europe with the European Union. But Europe is not the same as the EU. Europe is a cultural sphere, a history, a diversity of languages; Europe has a spiritual evolution, a landscape, and a memory. The EU, on the other hand, is primarily a political and economic administrative entity. So, those who criticize the EU are not automatically anti-European. And those who join it are not automatically \u201cmore European.\u201d Here, too, we confuse cultural belonging with political structure.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Interestingly, on the same day that I read the interview, I also heard a conversation on BBC Radio 4 with the sculptor Antony Gormley\u2014later joined by Ed Behrens from the art magazine Apollo<\/em>\u2014in connection with the Venice Biennale [a major international art exhibition held in Venice, Italy.] The same question of identity arose on an entirely different level. The Venice Biennale is currently in the midst of a crisis of national representation: boycotts, resignations, political exclusions, the question of Israel, Russia, and other states. Suddenly the fundamental question arose, \u201cWhy do national pavilions even still exist?\u201d Modern art has long since become transnational. Biographies, influences, and cultural identities constantly cross national borders. Precisely for this reason, the model of national art representation seems more and more artificial. And yet the crisis also reveals that the national is by no means a thing of the past. It lives on psychologically, perhaps because people are searching for a sense of belonging. Here, too, a fresh reading of Steiner seems necessary to me. Not in the sense of defending anthroposophy as a worldview or group identity\u2014for that, too, would amount to a form of identification\u2014but as an attempt to take radically serious the concept of freedom.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Perhaps the current crises are forcing us to take a closer look. What does it actually mean to act from the \u2018I\u2019? And how do we know when we are acting out of freedom\u2014and when out of identification? This does not strike me as a trivial question. If anthroposophy is to have any relevance for political or cultural life today, then perhaps it lies precisely in this: that it helps us perceive those subtle transitions where free moral action slips into collective identification. Not to judge people. Not to elevate ourselves morally above others. Not to decide who is \u201ctruly anthroposophical\u201d and who is not. But to\u2014together\u2014gain greater clarity. Perhaps peace work begins only where we seek the roots of war, the creation of enemies, and identification not only in others, but also within ourselves. In this sense, I am grateful to Frode Barkved, Kopyl, and the editorial team for this courageous text. Not because it provides answers. But because it brings to light questions that we, as contemporaries, can no longer avoid.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n\n

Eduard Willareth<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Is Russia the Sole Culprit?<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

The cover photo of the issue spoke volumes. The statue of Saint Vladimir was covered to protect it from Russian bombs. No, the Russian language was not banned in eastern Ukraine. No one who spoke Russian was discriminated against. And so, the brothers and sisters killed by Ukrainians before 2014\u2014about 14,000 people\u2014probably didn\u2019t exist either? The residents of Crimea wanted to join Ukraine anyway, despite the clear referendum result? One word would have been enough to prevent all this hatred from arising: neutrality. Now this hatred is palpable everywhere\u2014and it has a Slavic dimension, meaning that someone must die. Russia is accused of aggression. The RAND Corporation has just released a study concluding that Russia is not an aggressor per se. The country wants security. It has no geographical borders, neither rivers nor mountains; it is an open country. This makes agreements all the more important\u2014agreements that people today only feel bound by if they serve their own interests. This means that Russia is insecure and is building effective weapons, which the West perceives as provocation and aggression. The country has been overrun and destroyed time and again in the past. Napoleon, ruler of Europe\u2019s Western, highly civilized, and educated elite, turned the Cathedral of the Dormition of the Mother of God in the Kremlin\u2014where Vladimir\u2019s famous icon of the Virgin Mary is housed\u2014into a stable. The Western, highly educated people of poets and thinkers slaughtered 27 million people in World War II; in World War I, the number was not nearly as high! That leaves its mark on the collective memory! Yet NATO continues to push its borders ever closer to the country\u2014despite a handshake agreement that this would never happen. That was a condition for the reunification of Germany. Disregarded and ridiculed because it wasn\u2019t in writing\u2014what a disgrace that remains to this day. And today? Russia as the sole culprit? The EU wants to sever Russia from Europe, so it\u2019s driven into the Asian hemisphere, which is not Russia\u2019s home. The country has a friendship of convenience with China, cemented by the EU\u2019s hatred. Europe (not the EU, which is a forced construct) can only see its cultural and economic greatness unfold together with Russia. The Anglo-Saxon powers have successfully prevented this for centuries, right up to the present day.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

This is coming to an end because nation-states are gradually being dissolved by supranational organizations. Democracy has always been a thorn in their side. They want total control over the entire planet so they can do whatever they please. They make their own laws, which mainly steer people into doing only what benefits them! Through the development of AI, the tokenization of nature, transhumanism, and more, they are advancing rapidly. Europe\u2019s swan song has been playing for years and is now reaching its final chord in Ukraine. The black soil and the vast reserves of raw materials already belong to major American corporations. Our politicians don\u2019t talk about this\u2014they don\u2019t want us to interfere with their private business dealings.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

If Russia were to lose this war, the empire would disintegrate into its constituent regions. The imperial West\u2019s next war would be against China. It follows, then, that Russia must not lose this war. Ukraine must find a diplomatic solution, something that could have happened long ago. Britain prevented this. They also want to use the conflict to develop and test new, autonomous weapons systems that will later (that is, in a few years or even just months) also be put to use in civilian society. Millions of dead and maimed young people are accepted as the price to pay. That is the true tragedy unfolding in this Slavic region, and yes\u2014this terrible war affects us all, especially our future!<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n\n

Contact <\/strong>ewillareth@protonmail.com<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Translation <\/strong>Joshua Kelberman<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Reflections and reader responses to the interview by Frode Barkved with Ukranian Serhii Kopyl, \u201cEverything I Own, I Carry with Me.\u201d Winston Churchill wrote that the first casualty of war is truth, speech. Indeed, violence silences and polarizes. We welcome here an open conversation about this most terrible war in Europe since 1945. Renatus Derbidge Questions We Can No Longer Avoid To me, this article is among the best I have read in Das Goetheanum in a long time. Not […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":9181,"featured_media":72506,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[8822,11413],"tags":[11802,11803,8814],"class_list":["post-72784","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-geopolitics","category-letter","tag-ausgabe-21-2026-en","tag-english-issue-23-2026","tag-musings"],"acf":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/dasgoetheanum.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/72784","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/dasgoetheanum.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/dasgoetheanum.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/dasgoetheanum.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/9181"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/dasgoetheanum.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=72784"}],"version-history":[{"count":3,"href":"https:\/\/dasgoetheanum.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/72784\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":72836,"href":"https:\/\/dasgoetheanum.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/72784\/revisions\/72836"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/dasgoetheanum.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/72506"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/dasgoetheanum.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=72784"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/dasgoetheanum.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=72784"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/dasgoetheanum.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=72784"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}