Savchenko: devaluation of image

Undoubtedly, Nadia Savchenko’s behavior should be divided into two periods. The first is, when she languished in a Russian jail and Ukrainians supported her in every possible way. In particular, the newspaper Den/The Day regularly carried reports and interviews on this matter and even took part in an event in support of Nadia. It was right to do so in that frame of references. But freedom imposes other duties, and one should remember that Savchenko’s behavior is the behavior of, above all, a member of parliament and a person who has won well-deserved respect and popularity. This means a totally different level of responsibility for both words and deeds that not only discredit Savchenko, but are also of a destructive nature in a general political sense.

On Tuesday Savchenko, who has made a series of disputable statements in the past few months after being freed from Russian captivity, made one more step – she vowed a hunger strike. She is going to do so in protest against lack of efforts to free prisoners of war, which had touched off a new wave of questions in social websites. First of all, the general public wants to know a cause-and-effect link between the hunger strike and the government’s “lack of efforts.” But, to tell the truth, the Ukrainian government was making an all-out effort to free Savchenko. Petro Poroshenko personally asked her to stop the “dry” hanger strike.

“One of the mechanisms of my release was a protest by hunger against inaction of the Ukrainian authorities,” the MP says. “Today, I am going on a hunger strike again in protest against inactivity of those who are in power all over the world (!), as far as freeing Ukrainian prisoners of war is concerned. I will starve until the day of a positive result.” The phrases “in power all over the world” and “the day of a positive result” have obviously put more questions than given explanations.

There are dozens of Ukrainian political prisoners in Russian dungeons now – and hundreds on the occupied Donbas territories. This raises a question: why is Savchenko putting the blame on the Ukrainian leadership and those “in power all over the world,” while the criminal “DNR” has declined Kyiv’s proposal to exchange prisoners on the principle of 50 militants for 25 Ukrainian soldiers? The bandits want an “all for all” exchange. In addition, terrorists’ representatives are insisting on an amnesty.

Besides, Savchenko has said again she is ready for a direct dialog with terrorists. “I have said a thousand times that I am ready to go there – with or without cover – in order to achieve a result,” she said, adding that she is prepared to negotiate with Zakharchenko and Pushylin.

COMMENTARY

Yevhen MAHDA, political scientist:

“The place and content of these statements are very important. When Savchenko spoke of a hunger strike in the Russian jail, it looked like a political gesture, but when she speaks of a hunger strike in downtown Kyiv, it looks like a farce. Her statements have negative consequences not only for herself, but also for Ukraine, for this devalues the symbol of Ukrainian resistance. On the other hand, it is worthwhile to recall the old maxim that ‘you shall not make for yourself any graven image.’ I do not think Savchenko is a traitor or an enemy agent. In all likelihood, Russia duly assessed her mental type, denying her full access to information in prison, and began to put [her mentality] into a proper channel. She was ‘fed’ with certain imperatives, and she turned out to be a grateful user of this information. In Ukraine, she has already been given certain low-profile assistants. But now she has adequate access to broader information and is thus fully responsible for what she says.”