The Kyiv Bulgakov Museum criticized the conclusion of the Institute of National Memory

Mykhailo Bulgakov

The Kyiv Literary and Memorial Museum of Bulgakov reacted to the opinion of the experts of the Ukrainian Institute of National Remembrance (UINP), in which they recognized the Russian writer Mykhailo Bulgakov as a Ukrainophobe and an imperialist.

The relevant message appeared on the museum’s website on Monday, April 8.

“The conclusion is not a full examination. Most of the most complex meaningful statements, which should be the basis for the conclusions and recommendations of this kind of document, are presented here without arguments, have the form of emotionally colored, with blurred interpretations, definitions“, the museum said in a statement.

The Bulgakov Museum stated that the experts of the National Institute of Internal Affairs and Communications use phrases that, in their opinion, are “excessively categorical judgments, which as a result rather figuratively impose than reasonedly justify the recommendation part of the document“.

They note that the conclusion contains mixed elements of argumentation and evidence and evaluative judgments. “The final conclusions of the document are not only not reasoned, but also not detailed, and do not contain recommendations regarding the conditions of the circumstances of their application“, the museum is convinced.

“The given arguments regarding the figure and works of M. Bulgakov are clearly exaggerated, tendentious, superficial, not based on sources or distorting them. Metaphorical, emotional and categorical presentation of theses speaks more about the personal dislike and tendency of the authors’ perception than about scientific, professional expertise“, the message says.

The Bulgakov Museum declares that most of the experts of the National Institute of Natural Sciences do not have a specialty relevant to the topic of the study, so they do not have the appropriate competence. And they note that the scientific employees of the museum were not invited to participate in the examination.

Also, in their report, the museum’s scientists set out fragments of the conclusion of the National Institute of Internal Affairs and Communications, which they consider to be manipulative and factually erroneous.

In view of this, the museum requests to publish the full text of the study: “In the public discussion, the text of the Conclusion is misinterpreted by the public as an actual examination, which leads to the mixing of categorical emotional statements presented at the beginning with contradictory and sometimes baseless arguments. Please note that the conclusion must be based on a full-fledged study, which in turn must contain references to sources. We demand the publication of the text of the full expert study, because without comprehensive professional reasoning, the commission’s conclusion cannot be considered scientific“.

The Bulgakov Museum concluded that for a large part of the population of Ukraine, Bulgakov “can be a convenient entry point to understanding the real Ukrainian history, precisely through the debunking of Russian imperial narratives“and the writer’s museum in the capital – “a guide to other museum sites in Kyiv“.