A conversation about the future: what it could look like and who is responsible for shaping it. Below is a summary of a dialogue between Oleksandr Komarov, President of Kyivstar, and Yevhen Hlibovytskyi – visionary, Head of the Frontier Institute, and member of the Supervisory Board of Ukraine’s Public Broadcaster.
Hlibovytskyi argues that Ukraine possesses a unique combination of qualities that could make it exceptionally well suited to the twenty-first century. Ukrainians have the ability to think simultaneously in terms of survival and development, they have inherited an industrial foundation that can be transformed into an advantage, and they are inclined to experiment, adapt quickly, and learn through practice rather than becoming trapped in excessive theorizing.
One of the greatest illusions shattered in recent years, he says, is the belief that somewhere there are “responsible adults” who fully understand what is happening in the world. In reality, such adults do not exist. There are only people willing to assume responsibility and become subjects of action themselves.
According to Hlibovytskyi, the Ukrainian state often lacks the capacity to preserve institutional memory. This role has increasingly been assumed by civil society, which is now supported more by Ukrainian capital than by international donors. Unlike many Western countries, where civil society is largely part of the democratic façade, in Ukraine it has become one of the country’s primary load-bearing structures.
He also argues that business should become the “adult in the room.” Business is the country’s most competitive and meritocratic environment, where decisions are directly connected to their consequences. At the same time, he cautions against mechanically transferring business logic to public administration. A business operates under the risk of a single company going bankrupt, whereas the failure of a state can mean the deaths of millions of people.
His most important warning is that Ukraine’s success is not predetermined. History offers examples of countries with capable leaders and rich cultures that nevertheless failed to realize their potential. The greatest danger, in his view, is ressentiment. If victory does not lead to the post-traumatic growth many Ukrainians expect, the country could begin searching for external scapegoats, much as Hungary did after the Treaty of Trianon. For this reason, Hlibovytskyi believes that the fear of failure should not disappear. It should remain – not as a source of paralysis, but as a force for vigilance, responsibility, and continued mobilization.
