Technocracy instead of logic: why the new head of the Ministry of Culture may exacerbate the crisis in the cultural sphere

The Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine has appointed a temporary acting Minister of Culture and Strategic Communications. She became Tetyana Berezhna, a specialist in the legal, economic and administrative spheres. This personnel decision was presented as a technical step designed to ensure “manageability in a period of transformation” and “a lively dialogue with the cultural community.” However, the very figure of Berezhnaya raises questions not only about the appropriateness of this direction, but also about the general logic of state policy in the humanitarian sector. A person who has no professional experience in the cultural sphere, no background in the field of humanitarian policy, now heads the ministry responsible for the formation and implementation of state policy in the fields of arts, heritage protection, cultural industries, libraries, museums, archives and strategic communications. The government explained this as the need for “manageability”, but kept silent about the main thing: why instead of an experienced cultural figure, a strategic thinker with the trust of the professional environment, the ministry received a temporary manager without any touch on this plane? Is it really true that Ukraine has not found a specialist professional from the community that maintains the defense on the cultural front every day?

Professional experience of Tatyana Berezhnaya

The appointment of Tetyana Berezhnaya as the interim acting Minister of Culture and Strategic Communications of Ukraine took place in the context of a systemic humanitarian crisis. The Cabinet of Ministers made this personnel decision on July 28, 2025, when in the field of culture there is no even a basic managerial response to structural problems: personnel degradation, symbolic funding and a complete loss of strategic priority. Commenting on the appointment, Head of Government Yuliya Svyridenko emphasized the importance of “manageability, financial stability and lively dialogue with the cultural community.”

Tatyana Berezhna was born in Rohatyn in 1989. The professional path was formed successively: legal education at the Kyiv-Mohyla Academy, internship at the Parliament of Canada, studies at the Ukrainian School of Political Studies, at the Aspen Institute Kyiv, at the programs of the London School of Economics and the Kyiv School of Economics. Their majors were political studies, GR (Government Relations), state strategy, management. In addition, she graduated from the School of Strategic Architect program at the Kyiv-Mohyla Business School (KMBS). For more than 10 years, Berezhna worked at the “Vasyl Kisil and Partners” law firm, and in 2022 she became the Deputy Minister of Economy of Ukraine. In this position, she was responsible for the labor policy of the state, development of mechanisms for reducing unemployment, reintegration of veterans, creation of jobs and modernization of labor legislation.

However, it should be noted that Berezhna had no public or substantive background in the field of culture, art or strategic communications within the humanitarian context. Her experience is mainly economics, law, international projects, as well as the GR direction, which involves interaction with institutions, but not necessarily the formation of a valuable cultural agenda. First Deputy Prime Minister Yulia Svyridenko’s argument that it is “critically important for the ministry to maintain governance and dialogue with the cultural community” does not contain specific public explanations as to why Berezhna was appointed to this position. It is significant that not a single case, implemented policy or initiative in the field of culture has been announced, which would establish it as an active player in this area.

At the Ministry of Economy, Tetyana Berezhna was responsible for the field of labor and employment. Among the declared directions are combating unemployment, creating jobs, supporting veterans, overcoming gender inequality in wages, forming a new philosophy of employment, and returning migrants from abroad. However, the current personnel decision was not accompanied by an analysis of the results of this work. It has not been made public what specific achievements were not in her previous position. Has the employment of veterans increased? Have new tools been implemented in the labor market? Was her decision affected by the reduction of shadow employment or the reduction of migration outflow? Without this, the public broadcast of the appointment looks like a continuation of the trend: another streamlined career maneuver within the framework of political stabilization, rather than the result of effective management.

In addition, Berezhnaya’s biography testifies to her participation in a large number of elite educational programs, which are mainly focused on the development of leadership, strategic thinking and public administration. The educational route of Yulia Svyridenko gives the impression of a consistent immersion in the system of international scholarship programs, which are formed with the participation of donor structures and Western academic centers. The key weakness of such a profile is the separation from practical activities in the field of public administration. The environment of scholarship programs usually offers modeled, theoretically pure solutions to complex systemic problems, but does not teach how to work in the realities of our country. Moreover, some of the training programs in which Svyridenko participated are not focused on the implementation of state policy as such, but on abstract visions and slogans.

At the same time, participation in such a large number of donor and scholarship programs may indicate a professional attraction to the international environment more than to the Ukrainian administrative depth. If a person has been studying for years in programs aimed at reforming Ukraine from the outside, but at the same time has no experience in regional administrations, central executive bodies, then a reasonable question arises: to what extent is he able to realize these visions not in theory, but in the state mechanism that resists every day?

Culture on the verge of survival and the politically convenient appointment of Berezhnaya

In the shadow of war and geopolitical instability, the sphere of culture in Ukraine is rapidly degrading not because it is not needed, but because the state refuses to recognize it as a critical component of politics. This can be partly explained by the fact that the country is at war and there are other important priorities, but culture forms the identity and stability of society, resists informational aggression, and also supports national unity, which should not be forgotten.
However, the rhetoric about the importance of Ukrainian identity, “culture as a weapon” and “humanitarian front” remains only at the level of officials’ speeches. However, the reality is the opposite. The humanitarian infrastructure is on the verge of collapse due to the meager salaries of cultural workers, the inefficient system of tariff classifications and the blatant disregard of government regulations by the authorities themselves.

In houses of culture, museums, libraries and schools of aesthetic education – wherever there is a question of culture in the system of state or communal management – workers with higher education, experience and creative achievements receive salaries that demean the very idea of their profession. Paradoxically, a specialist – a group leader, a director, an artistic director or a methodologist – has a tariff category that formally provides him with a payment lower than the statutory minimum wage. At the same time, a cleaner or a security guard, whose salary is not tied to the Unified Tariff Grid (ETS), receives more – simply because they are paid the “minimum”.

The reason for this lies in the very structure of the ETS. According to the current grid, cultural specialists are most often assigned to 10–12 grades. However, in conditions where even the 12th grade is lower than the established minimum wage, an absurd situation occurs: a professional who leads a theater group or teaches children to play a musical instrument receives less than a person without specialized education who performs low-skilled work. This is not only a humiliation, but a systematic distortion of the logic of state policy.

Back in 2021, the Cabinet of Ministers adopted Resolution No. 1037, which was supposed to ensure “salary differentiation” and eliminate the mentioned equalizer. The document clearly foresees the need to increase the salary of specialists with high ranks or with a high level of responsibility. However, as it turned out, there is a resolution, but there is no implementation. At the same time, local budgets, which are responsible for financing a large part of cultural institutions, do not have the resources or do not consider it necessary to implement these provisions. The state, in turn, does not create incentives and does not exercise control.

As a result, specialists are forced to live on 6–7 thousand hryvnias per month, often without allowances, indexation and bonuses. And most importantly, without prospects. Talented people go either to education, or to employment, or simply change their field of activity. The system loses a professional resource that will not be able to recover immediately after the war. And if this continues, the question will arise: who will need the Ministry of Culture if there are no people left who create it?

It should be noted that more than 11,000 club institutions, tens of thousands of cultural workers working in communities are the infrastructure that the state called “the basis of resistance” in 2022. It was these people who organized volunteer headquarters in the first months of the invasion, carried out evacuations, helped the adaptation of displaced persons, worked with children who survived the occupation or losses. But already in 2023–2025, they found themselves among the least socially protected groups of workers. Budgetary sequestration is a simple but insufficient explanation. The state finds resources to increase salaries in the security sector, prosecutors, judges, and to finance new management entities, but culture is not a priority.

The cultural sphere in Ukraine is not limited by the lack of funding or the reduction of institutions. We are talking about a much deeper structural decay caused by the blurring of politics, the lack of strategic continuity, the devaluation of professional personnel and the marginalization of culture as an element of social development. Despite the presence of strategic documents and programs that determine the priorities of state policy in the field of culture, such as the Culture Strategy, they often remain formal documents without mechanisms for practical implementation. Their implementation is not ensured by sufficient budget commitments, personnel reinforcement or transparent monitoring. As a result, decisions are made situationally, depending on the political situation or changes in the composition of the government.

In general, cultural policy in the country remains fragmented. Although there is a Ministry of Culture and Strategic Communications as the central executive body responsible for policy formation in the field of culture, it has long since lost its role as a real coordinator. Its functions are increasingly reduced to formal administration and reporting. There is no sustainable practice of horizontal interaction with regions, communities, trade unions, institutions of civil society and players of the cultural environment. As a result, decision-making is often isolated from the real context and needs of the cultural network.

In addition, access to cultural services in Ukraine remains deeply uneven. If there are theaters, cultural hubs, and art centers in Kyiv or big cities, then in small communities these are mostly run-down institutions inherited from the Soviet model, often with empty halls and a formalized schedule of events. Residents of certain regions have a much smaller chance of access to a quality cultural product — both physically and mentally. This creates not only a feeling of cultural isolation, but also alienation from the national process of identity formation.

The position of creative industries remains a separate problem. Although the authorities recognize their importance in official rhetoric, in practice the creative sector — from film and design to music and digital — is actually not integrated into the system of economic stimulation. Tax instruments, export support system, credit and insurance opportunities in the cultural environment are absent or unavailable. Most cultural startups cannot compete with global platforms because they lack resources and state support. As a result, Ukraine is losing part of its potential for cultural diplomacy, creative economy, and digital identity.

Marginalization of cultural heritage is another symptom of the disintegration of the strategy. Despite the declared priorities, most objects of immovable and intangible heritage remain without protection, registration passports and registers or with invalid documents. There are no specialists in the protection of cultural heritage in the communities. Local governments often do not understand how to take inventory, how to use heritage as a development resource, not ballast. The war only accelerated the destruction – not only buildings, but also knowledge, connections, and traditions are under the rubble.

At the same time, cultural topics have almost disappeared as a separate category of content in Ukrainian television. The absence of programs dedicated to broadening one’s horizons, literature, art, cultural heritage or analysis of creative processes has become the norm. Cultural remnants are isolated talk shows or disparate plots that often simplify the content to an entertainment level or lack depth. The crisis of cultural and educational content for children and adolescents is particularly noticeable: Ukrainian TV channels practically do not offer programs that would introduce young audiences to history, theater, cinema, language or music through a live and modern format. This creates a gap in the transmission of values between generations and alienates the youth from the national cultural code. Instead of a platform for education, self-expression and dialogue, television is increasingly turning into a tool for show and monotony.

Therefore, the cultural sphere of Ukraine is on the verge of exhaustion. It is preserved not thanks to the state policy, but rather contrary to it – thanks to the will of experts, institutions, activists, who rely on bare enthusiasm. The Cabinet’s attempt to solve personnel problems due to the temporary appointment of Tetyana Berezhnaya arouses skepticism. This is a traditional symptom of the disease of the Ukrainian bureaucratic system: the dominance of functional interchangeability over the expertise of the official. Instead of appointing a person with a deep cultural background, an understanding of humanitarian policy, and the practice of cooperation with the artistic environment, the government chose a figure with an economic and legal profile, comfortable in management and already integrated into the executive vertical. This creates the risk of turning the Ministry of Culture into a bureaucratic superstructure without a meaningful mission, as well as not solving, but continuing problems and, ultimately, paving the way to the final collapse of Ukraine’s humanitarian policy. I really want this not to happen.