Heavenly Hundred 2nd anniversary

Two years ago at this date many people, Ukraine’s worthiest sons and daughters, were killed in downtown Kyiv. At the time it was clear that the three-month rally of protest on Independence Square, the Maidan, was nearing its finale, and that it would follow the worst possible scenario.

The then president of Ukraine, Viktor Yanukovych, took the cruelest possible forceful measures to remain in office (he was also haunted by the Orange Maidan). He was not alone. There was the Kremlin that had learned the 2004 Maidan lesson. According to ex-SBU chief Valentyn Nalyvaichenko, Russians were in Kyiv and gave direct orders on behalf of the top executive authorities.

On the other side was the Ukrainian Opposition, actually people from the former Orange camp (although there were new faces to be seen) who had discredited themselves after 2004 and helped Yanukovych win the election in 2010. They were assisted by the West (US, Canada, and EU) while the local oligarchs were playing their game, supporting the President and Opposition, with some big-time businessmen actually running with the hare and hunting with the hounds.

Who won in the end? In a way, everyone did after the fall of Yanukovych and his escape to Russia. Opposition came to power. The oligarchs who had banked on Yanukovych’s defeat were satisfied while the others quickly changed sides. The West was on the winning side. But the Kremlin did not feel defeated in any way. After heating the situation on the Maidan to a certain temperature, Russia invaded and annexed Crimea, then launched a war of aggression in the east of Ukraine, occupying part of its territory.

Who was on the losing side? Yanukovych and his clan (although Liovochkin and a number of ex-Regionnaires are sitting pretty in the current parliament), but mostly the Ukrainian people, those who were on the Euromaidan. Hundreds of thousands of them who remained on the central square throughout the severe winter, demanding changes for the better on behalf of millions of fellow countrymen, who risked their health and life, and who found out they had been used in the end.

At the start of Euromaidan, Den/The Day repeatedly addressed public activists, urging them to combine efforts. A number of roundtables were organized in an attempt to explain to the young politicians that they would become part of the system – the good old oligarchic clannish system begotten by Leonid Kuchma during his 10-year presidency that would bring Yanukovych to power – unless they got organized as a strong movement or political party that could represent the Maidan rather than its podium (where access was restricted because it was under the politicians’ control). Too bad they didn’t listen carefully enough.

Two years ago at this time the Yanukovych regime was in its death throes and it was clear that the protesters’ “peaceful advance” on the Verkhovna Rada would not be bloodless. February 18 saw the first mass shootings in the government district of the city. Everyone wanted to avoid further bloodshed. This newspaper wrote that Ukraine would find itself under Putin’s direct control unless the situation was settled there and then. Indeed, part of Ukrainian territory is under his control now. Back in February 2014, too much was at stake and the players had made their bets. The bottom line is the rotation of clans in power, war of aggression, loss of national territory and thousands of Ukrainian lives, and reincarnation of the regime we were under in the 1990s.

Further proof of the lamentable status of Ukrainian politics is that Ukraine is marking the second anniversary of the Euromaidan’s tragic finale with massive violence in a state of political crisis. A very strong sense of deja vu about the whole thing, bringing one back to the post-Orange period. Once again we are witness to a fierce conflict between the teams of the president and prime minister, each struggling to have power and control over resources.

Certain questions remain topical under the circumstances: Why is Ukrainian society unable to settle a political problem after demonstrating such enviable self-organization and heroism on the Maidan? Does the Ukrainian citizenry know what actually happened on the Maidan two years after those stormy events? How can the present situation be resolved?

COMBATING KUCHMA-YANUKOVYCH REGIME’S HANGOVERS

Yurii SHCHERBAK, diplomat, political journalist:

“February 18-20, 2014, marked the most tragic period in the history of independent Ukraine. All events took place not far from my home. I could walk out on the balcony, I could hear gunfire and smell the acrid smoke. We watched the horrible sight and wept, there was nothing we could do to help. I’m still horrified walking down Bankova St. to the Writers’ Union. Each time I think I can still see those snipers wearing black fatigues, firing at unarmed civilians from that very place where our Ukrainian literature was created. All who witnessed and lived through those events will never forget them, just as they will always remember the undying feat of valor on the part of those people who worked miracles of mutual aid in such horrible conditions.

“However, two years after, we’re almost back to where we started, with a tragedy turning into tragicomedy at the Verkhovna Rada, a blasphemy against the memory of those who fell in battle on the Maidan. Did those people die for some venal politicians to squabble over the Cabinet issue?

FEBRUARY 20, 2014 / REUTERS photo

“Of course, the current government has accomplished a lot in horrible conditions, but it is definitely disliked by people who believe that those in power – the President, the Cabinet, Parliament, courts of law and public prosecutors’ offices – have accomplished less than expected from them by society. On the one hand, we witnessed a great deal of self-sacrifice, the rebirth of the Ukrainian political nation, but on the other side, a farce staged by all branches of power. The historical cycle has not reached the mark of another revolution. There’s no reason to expect a big social outburst, but it can happen and become ugly. This is something all who are prepared to set about saving the state of Ukraine should keep in mind.

“Could those deaths on the Maidan have been avoided? I don’t think so. Ukrainians simply had no choice at the time. They shouldn’t have believed the illusions of our allies in the West who arranged a deal between the opposition and Viktor Yanukovych. I think that if that deal had worked, Yanukovych would’ve cheated and found an excuse to invite Russian troops to Ukraine. We would have then silently watched Russian tanks on Khreshchatyk street. History at times offers more appropriate but, unfortunately, bloodshedding ways. At the time, it offered a way leading to slow Russian occupation and loss of Ukrainian national identity. The Revolution of Dignity proved the only way to topple Europe’s first truly criminal regime where everything was done in accordance with the Russian Inmate Code rather than European law. Today we’re combating that regime’s hangovers. I might as well point out that the Kuchma regime perfectly merged with, and grew into, the Yanukovych regime. Most politicians in power these days have been in Leonid Kuchma’s retinue, steeped in the underpinning principles of his regime.

“The Revolution of Dignity demonstrated the existence of a universal Ukrainian principle as people proved that they believe in the ideals of freedom and independence, that they were prepared to die for them. Many of them did. These people have been fighting to stop Russia’s aggression and are now struggling to overcome the old system. This is a complicated process that will take time. The Bolsheviks shed blood all over the Russian empire to establish their political system. We cannot follow in their footsteps, so our struggle against the old system must rely on the principles of justice, rule of law, preserving the democratic spirit of the state of Ukraine.

“After the Revolution of Dignity those in power made every effort to prevent the young politicians and public activists from concentrating on their political parties. There was constant simulation of political activity, along with sham political projects that had little to do with actual parties. This illusory ‘party life’ was supported by the oligarchs who are still ruling Ukraine. They were ready with projects for the coming elections that met the public demand for new political faces.

“However, important changes for the better have taken place over the past two years. They may have been chaotic, nonsystemic, but Ukraine has definitely moved in the direction of Europe. Most importantly, Ukrainian society has been able to determine its own ruthlessly accurate diagnosis. That is why the people is moving ahead of its government, demanding from it more than it is accomplishing. This is a guarantee of our progress.”

NO SURVEY COMMISSIONED BY CURRENT ADMINISTRATION

Yevhen HOLOVAKHA, deputy director, Institute of Social Studies, National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine:

“Yanukovych and his regime are responsible for the heinous consequences of the Revolution of Dignity in the first place, because they couldn’t make reasonable decisions that would prevent the radicalization of society. On December 10, 2013, the Sociological Association of Ukraine warned that those responsible for the violent suppression of Euromaidan should be brought to justice, that this would settle the situation. In February 2014, I warned the government that it was leading the country to a tragedy, but no one paid heed to me. At the time the situation could be resolved in a simple civilized way. The protesters had clear-cut demands. They wanted the government reset and early elections. But in a country ruled by a clan, the interests of that clan are above the national ones. Then it happened and the consequences were bad. Another reason, I think, is that the radical forces played a critical role on the Maidan.

“After the Revolution of Dignity I expected the new Verkhovna Rada to show a structure based on new principles. That didn’t happen. By force of habit our political community remains unstructured, so it is anyone’s guess who represents which social strata. Our political parties come and go, even if on the crest of the wave of public enthusiasm. The only thing left is the issue of power. This problem still exists, that’s why public confidence in the existing political parties is so low, resulting in constant political crises. This happened after the first Maidan and this is happening today. Public disillusionment is deepening. There are many surveys showing that over the past two years this disillusionment has been on a vivid upward curve, even without the war and economic factors.

“A number of active and well educated people emerged after the Maidan. They could find a common platform for ideological unity. Den/The Day correctly pointed out that young politicians should work out a platform of their own, different from the old format political projects. Then they would find support. Regrettably, this didn’t happen. They scattered merging with the traditional leading clannish groups – precisely what those political projects were all about – and vanished. These young people don’t know what to do next, they are divided on who should have power. Above all, they lack the main thing: principles of ideology.

“There are many people in Ukraine who need an ideology, who want more than supporting things that are good in general. They want to take a certain ideological stand. There are some 200 political parties in Ukraine but none with a social democratic program, considering that such a program is most popular with the man in the street. There are no truly liberal parties that could act as opponents. Any attempt to organize such a party is doomed. That is why extreme nationalist forces with their ideology and slogans constitute a threat; they may score points in current conditions. This may hinder our progress in the European direction.

“Our politicians ought to realize that now is not the time to sort things out. Now is the time to take a definite ideological stand. They must make their objective absolutely clear. I’d recommend those currently in power that they keep in mind the experience of the first Maidan (when its leaders came to power and then clawed at each other’s throat, destroying all their achievements) and the second Maidan. No one can guarantee that there will be no further outbursts of public protest. Our president and Cabinet should find adequate solutions to problems as they arise.

“In 2015, I warned about the mounting social tensions, particularly in Kyiv and in the east of Ukraine, in the regions from which our current political leadership came to power. These politicians should study sociology to realize what will happen if they fail to coordinate their efforts and keep them consistent. Angela Merkel, for example, has a special research team that carries out some 200 polls a year, dealing with various issues within the Cabinet’s jurisdiction. It is clearly apparent that she mostly relies on public opinion when making decisions, including sanctions against Russia and weapons supplies to Ukraine. Result: sanctions but no supplies. Of course, public opinion can be wrong whereas politicians are supposed to know what’s best for their country, but public opinion must be considered and appropriate measures worked out.

“I haven’t seen a single survey/poll commissioned by the current Ukrainian administration. The last one dates back to 2011. It was ordered by the Confidence in Reform State Committee on Innovations. Azarov and Yanukovych used the findings in their public appearances and even worked out a program that served to increase public confidence and interest in their reforms. In the end, everything remained on paper.”