The editorial board of Ukraina Moderna invited the Forum participants to reflect on questions concerning the roles and functions of scholars in memory studies; the possibility of analyzing “transnational” or “non-national” memory and the methodology behind such research; and an adequate assessment of the role of history in the contemporary social space. The majority of the Forum participants are in agreement that historical memory is a construct, in which personal and group experiences and political views interact. They also agree on the differences between “memory” and “history.” Ewa Domańska (Adam Mickiewicz University, Poznań, Poland) considers that contemporary memory studies are no longer simply about overcoming national, racial, or gender borders (queer memory) but about elucidating memory in the context of studying the specific features of people (and not just people). Thus, the set of problems relating to memory helps to break down the traditional anthropocentrism of historical studies. According to Bogumił Koss-Jewsiewicki (Université Laval, Quebec, Canada) memory is a contemporary reminder of past experiences that are important specifically today. At the same time, a historical event can spark different memories, each of which is “real,” if it presents the experiences of various people that are connected to that same event. Yulia Zerniy (National Institute for Strategic Studies, Kyiv, Ukraine) is convinced that for the national state, memory is an object of policies aimed at achieving social unity and the internal cohesion of a “national community.” In her view, the successful implementation of the Ukrainian national project stipulates a reappraisal of history and a decisive deconstruction of “imperialist-Soviet schemes.” According to Andrew S. Bergerson (University of Missouri, USA) the functioning of memory is crucial to leading a contemporary life, while reminiscences of the past can prompt us to taking responsibility in the present. Harald Binder (Center for Urban History of East Central Europe, Lviv, Ukraine) supports the idea of historians taking active part in social debates without betraying the principles of their profession and their objectivity. The thesis of historians’ non-engagement as a key principle is upheld by Olha Ostriychuk (L’Ecole des Hautes Etudes en Sciences Sociales, Paris, France) who also notes that many studies describe the “state” of memory, not its dynamics. Uğur Ümit Üngör (University College Dublin, Ireland) reflects on the specific features of memory, using the example of the Armenian genocide in the Ottoman Empire. The author argues that the current international policy of eternalizing memory depends on strategic interests, not ethic considerations. Tetyana Zhurzhenko (University of Vienna, Austria) emphasizes the efficacy of researching the memory of borderland and transborder territories. Virgiliu Birladeanu and Ludmila Cojocari (Academy of Sciences of Moldova, Chişinău) offer examples of the use of commemorative practices and rituals as mechanisms for building group solidarity in the Republic of Moldova. Alain Blum (EHESS, Paris) emphasizes the fruitfulness of going beyond the framework of national history. He is convinced that developmental studies of memory in the post-communist countries will help internationalize the discussion, which will create, in some measure, a shield against national mythmaking.