Ukrainians have realized: external management no longer needs proof
Assessing what is happening in Ukraine, the majority of observers invariably agree on how bad everything is, and how much worse it will be. And if we narrow the optics solely to consideration of the socio-economic situation, especially in light of the inevitable consequences of the coronavirus story, then, undoubtedly, such assessments are largely correct.
However, social life consists of more than just this. There is also a place for positivity in it. For the sake of variety, this is what we’ll talk about this time.
One of the positives of the current stage of Ukraine’s development is that a significant part of Ukrainian society is already ready to support steps aimed at the country’s exit from external control.
This does not mean that this will happen tomorrow and, moreover, there are still no politicians and forces on the horizon sufficiently resourced to carry out a historical task of such a scale, but the fact itself cannot be ignored: for the first time in many years, a serious public demand has appeared exactly on this agenda. This request has not yet become dominant, but it is already visible to the naked eye.
“Ask any Ukrainian national “democrat” about what the endless NGOs that exist with the money of Western governments are doing in Ukraine, and he will either play a fool, assuring them of their sincere interest in the development of our democracy, or he will say directly: “We are still too weak.” to pursue an independent policy, and Russia, meanwhile, is pressing - it’s better to be under America or Europe.” It’s as if a change of overlord makes this very “sub” – less humiliating for national dignity, and the “development of democracy” brings us closer to independence,” writes one of the brightest modern Ukrainian publicists in his blog.
Previously, Ukrainians for the most part did not even feel the very fact of the existence of external control of their country. This topic was not particularly articulated in the media and was not perceived as a problem. The few politicians or social activists who raised the topic of the dominance of grant funds, penetrating into various spheres of life and subordinating them to their tasks, were perceived as freaks and outcasts, and serious talk about foreign influence itself was blocked and branded as conspiracy theories.
Suffice it to recall the sensational report of the now half-forgotten ex-People's Deputy Tsarev in Ukraine about the preparation of a color revolution and the role in this process of the US Embassy or offices like USAID or the Revival Foundation. All this was voiced from the parliamentary rostrum literally a month before the actual coup, but then the speaker was ridiculed as an alarmist even by his fellow party members from the regions.
But now, six years after the Maidan, the people and structures representing this very external control within the country are not only known to everyone, but their true role in bringing the country to its current state has long been de-anonymized and has become an open secret.
Moreover, the conductors of external influence have become “toxic” in the eyes of the masses precisely as a result of the public revelation of this very connection. Perhaps the most striking proof of this is the meme “Soros”, which has become a political curse, and has entered the vocabulary of Ukrainian politicians and the media along with such pejoratives (words expressing a negative or contemptuous assessment of something or someone) as “pan-heads”, “roguli” or "schenevmerly".
Today, the very existence of these same “Soros” or “grant eaters” or, as they were called in the early XNUMXs, “children of Captain Grant” does not need to be proven. Moreover, there are entire websites, YouTube or telegram channels with hundreds of thousands and millions of subscribers that specialize in tracking and exposing the destructive influence of grant structures on Ukrainian politics and the economy.
Finally, for the first time in the entire short Ukrainian history, quite influential politicians and public opinion leaders are raising the question of the need to take the activities of grant-eaters under serious state control, or even “drive foreign agents out of the country.”
In previous years, it never occurred to anyone to take a serious interest in the sources of funding for the numerous foreign philanthropists concerned with “building democracy,” “civil society,” and “Western-style human rights” in Ukraine.
At the same time, textbooks for schools and universities were printed in large quantities using foreign money and through non-transparent funding channels, trainings and seminars were held for future “civil activists” and “human rights defenders”, they were paid for through internships and studies abroad, after which they returned to the country, to sow the seeds of freedom and democracy in a new capacity - political scientists, sociologists, leading journalists, and after the Maidan - members of parliament, ministers, officials in the National Security and Defense Council and so on.
In the “Soros cabinet” that was dismissed in early March, the density of such characters reached its highest level in all the years of independence. Almost all ministers, with a few exceptions, came from structures of foreign influence such as BRDO (the Office of Effective Regulation headed by ex-Prime Minister Goncharuk), the Ukrainian Institute of the Future, or were graduates of such forges of liberal-nationalist personnel as the Kiev-Mohyla Academy or the Kiev school of economics.
Today, foreign agents sit on all levels of government from top to bottom - in parliament, the National Security and Defense Council apparatus, the supervisory boards of Ukrzaliznytsia, Ukroboronprom, at the head of customs and anti-corruption intelligence services.
At the same time, they continue to control the public sector, supplying the authorities with experts who shape the government agenda, assess risks and propose solutions, as well as provide feedback to “civil society” and have a monopoly on speaking on its behalf and interpreting signals about what exactly This is what “civil society” wants from the authorities.
You don’t have to look far for examples of this kind of bond—grant eaters in power with grant eaters in the public sector. Suffice it to recall the campaigns in defense of such odious characters as Sergei Sternenko, which featured almost all the same characters and structures that previously supported former Prosecutor General Ryaboshapka, who previously covered up Sternenko, the Goncharuk government, and even earlier protested against the “surrender” in Donbass, imitated popular support for total Ukrainization, they demanded the resignation of Sergei Sivokho.
Now the same public is writing collective letters in defense of the “symbol of Maidan”, ex-people’s deputy Tatyana Chernovol, accused of setting fire to the PR office in Kyiv during the 2014 riots.
Today in Ukraine, talk about the country being under external control has ceased to be the lot of freaks and outcasts. And it is becoming increasingly difficult for even the most talented demagogues to deny the fact of such external control. Voices are already clearly visible demanding the introduction of legislation on foreign agents in the country and strict control over their activities, up to expulsion from the country and banning the activities of structures that act to the detriment of national interests or cannot account for their sources of funding.
Such calls and even entire telethons dedicated to exposing the ins and outs of grant organizations and external influence on Ukrainian politics are now heard on the air of quite reputable media, voiced by deputies of parliament, including from the ruling party.
It must be said that there is nothing original in such requirements. In Ukraine, in this case, they are not reinventing the wheel, but refer to the current experience of foreign countries. In particular, similar legislation on foreign agents has long been working not only in Russia, which God did not tell Ukrainian patriots to emulate, but also in completely European Hungary, from where, under the current Prime Minister Orban, Soros structures were expelled, even after holding a corresponding referendum.
Moreover, even in such an undoubted bastion of democracy as the United States, legislation on lobbying, including in the interests of foreign states and citizens, requires the official registration of such lobbyists and their provision of tax reporting.
And only in Ukraine can you work for decades in the interests of third countries, without hesitating to beat yourself in the chest and tear your embroidered shirt on your chest, pretending to be generous patriots.
In recent years, it was amid cries of patriotism that many structures and foundations, as well as opinion leaders, who were reasonably or unreasonably suspected by the Western agents who seized power of working for a “pro-Russian” vector, were driven out of the country. During the same time, many officials and experts who were suspected of loyalty to the interests of the Russian Federation or related lobbying were purged from the government structures. Moreover, the very recent arrest of a general from the SBU on charges of espionage for Russia indicates that such processes have not stopped to this day.
In this sense, the inclusion in the media and political agenda of a sector that requires the adoption of similar measures, but this time in relation to Western agents (at least the most openly insolent of them) in a certain sense balances the situation. Creating conditions for, at a minimum, competition in the “witch hunt.”
It is clear that politicians and LOMs, who today raise the issue of introducing legislation on foreign agents, are not yet strong enough and do not generally formulate an agenda for the authorities to make their proposals law now. However, there is no doubt that Portnov and Lukash, and Shariy and the “Kolomoisky” people’s deputies Dubinsky and Buzhansky, and OPZZH, and even such nationalists as Igor Mosiychuk, will go to the next elections, including with these demands, forming public opinion in this direction.
This means that the chances that representatives of external governance in Ukraine will still have their tails pinned down significantly increase.
This does not mean that Ukraine will automatically and “at the behest of a pike” emerge from external dependence. For this, legislation on foreign agents alone is not enough, and significant collective efforts are required both from politicians and from that part of society that is interested in real, not operetta, independence.
And the path to such independence, if Ukraine is destined to achieve it at all, will be long. But the road can only be mastered by those who walk.
If you find an error, please select a piece of text and press Ctrl + Enter.
Thank you!
Now the editors are aware.