Motion: This House believes that Ukraine needs a cultural front.
Why this motion, and why now?
The idea of a “cultural front” — at times expressed by its own advocates as a “cultural offensive” (культнаступ) — has become one of the most discussed and contested concepts in Ukraine’s cultural sphere. Writers, artists, linguists, public intellectuals, and civic leaders have welcomed its call for art, daily culture, and public speech to serve as weapons of resistance and forms of symbolic defence in time of war.
Others worry that this approach risks turning art and everyday life into a battlefield — transforming creative freedom and ordinary communication into tools of propaganda and control. Some also fear that Ukraine’s cultural front, at home and abroad, can sometimes feel like an attack not on Russia, but on Ukraine’s own diversity as a multiethnic, multilingual, multicultural nation.
This debate is not abstract. It touches Ukraine’s deepest civic and moral foundations and shapes everyday decisions and interactions: how we speak, what we read, and what we feel able to say in public. That is precisely why the motion must be debated directly and openly today.
What is an Oxford-style debate?
The Oxford-style debate is a great democratic tradition of free, spirited, and structured argument, which we now bring to Odessa. It begins not with a theme, but with a motion: a clear, recognisable statement that half of the speakers must support and half must oppose. The motion does not express the organisers’ own beliefs; it is an analytic device. Its purpose is to compel both sides to defend a concrete idea as it appears in public life, not as it might be reshaped in an academic seminar.In our case, the motion invites proponents of the cultural front to articulate and defend their own idea — the idea they themselves have widely put forward as a “cultural front” or “cultural offensive.” The question is not, “How do we define culture?” The question is: How do advocates of a cultural front define it, and can they defend it in open argument?As they make their case, both teams will tell us what they think the cultural front is, where the idea comes from, why Ukraine may or may not need it, whom or what it is directed against, and what purpose it serves for the country.Oxford debates help us separate ideas from persons, and arguments from identities — a skill crucial for any democratic society under strain.
Why debate at all?
We, Cosmopolitans, believe that the major questions facing Ukrainians today must not be settled by slogans, decrees, top-down rules, or private moral certainties — nor should they erupt into divisive brawls. They deserve to be confronted openly: sharply, passionately, even combatively, but always in good faith, and in a spirit of respect, curiosity, and civic trust.We insist that disagreement can unite rather than divide. In a time of growing polarisation, honest argument — even when fierce — can build trust and civic solidarity. We may not leave the room in agreement, but we will leave it understanding one another better.
Whatever views we enter with, and whatever views we leave with, we are united by a shared aim: to express the true spirit of the Ukrainian will to freedom. That spirit is shown best in our ability to debate the toughest questions at the hardest of times.
We warmly invite you to take part — in person in Odessa, or online.

Confirmed participants:
The debate will be preceded by talks on culture wars in comparative perspective from:
Alexander Morrison (Professor of History at the University of Oxford; Oxford) will speak about language and culture wars in the post-Soviet space and other postcolonial settings. Anastasia Piliavsky (Reader in Anthropology & Politics at King's College London, Founder of Cosmopolis, Odessa & Cambridge) will speak about culture wars in US and Ukraine.
Due to pressure experienced by invitees to our debate, we will reveal the teams closer to date. Watch this space!