every scientific discipline, every university and college, every institute, every research project, every researcher is, due to the “double-faced conception of science” (dear, 2005, p. 404), confronted with the question of the relationship of scientific autonomy and scientific relevance (utility, applicability). The fields of educational science in particular are rooted in this double horizon of expectation. The theoretical handling of the difference of autonomy and accountability is therefore also an ongoing theme and the theories offered take the following three directions: to choose one or the other, to unite both poles in harmony or to tolerate the conflict-causing dual membership. In this article another assumption will be made other than the separation, harmonisation or oscillation theory, namely that scientific and practice discourse complement each other: the question of utility serves the question of truth and vice versa.

The article aims to identify some of the misrepresentations of Ukraine that originated in Russia and led to distorted perceptions of Ukraine in the English-speaking academia. Apart from that, the article aims to expose the reasons behind the emergence of such misrepresentations, the way to counter them, and the pitfalls of using them in security analysis. The article hypothesizes that the traditional colonial perception of Ukraine prevents Western scholars and policy-makers, whom these scholars consult, from adequately interpreting and securitizing the acuteness of the contemporary Russian threat. To complete the research, the article draws from decolonial and securitization theories. The article argues that the centuries-long othering and denial of agency of Ukraine, combined with the lack of specific expertise on the country and the colonial tradition of knowledge production, led to a comparatively inconsistent response of Western academia to the post-2014 Russian aggression against a sovereign nation. To address the existing inadequacy, Western scholars should become more open to the opinions of their Ukrainian colleagues, accept the merit of unconventional perspectives, and revise Russo-centrism in research frameworks and teaching curricula.