Sivokho vs Azov: Why does it matter who wins?
As you know, the other day the far-right from “Azov” and its affiliated “National Corps” disrupted the presentation of a platform for reconciliation with Donbass developed by near-presidential circles, the frontman of which was Advisor to the Secretary of the Security Council and a former showman originally from Donbass Sergei Sivokho. The event itself is unprecedented - in fact, the war party gave a loud public slap in the face not to Sivokho, but to Zelensky personally. After all, it is on his instructions and on his behalf that all these peace plans and reconciliation platforms are being developed.
In fact, the Ukrainian government found itself in an ambiguous position. Roughly speaking, before offering people on the other side of the current front line any peace plans, it would be nice to put things in order at home - on this side of the demarcation line. Where various paramilitary groups now de facto rule and feel at home, who do not want any peace in any form.
But the reaction of the right is just predictable. Much more revealing is the reaction of a significant part of the opponents of Poroshenko’s continuation of course and supporters of ending the war in Donbass and everything that is commonly called the “peace process.” Many of these people again stood in a proud pose above the battle, singing the usual songs about the plague for six years to both your houses.
This position could still be understandable if there were some third force in the current political agenda of the country - one closer in spirit to such critics. And, moreover, influential enough to be able to finish the phrase about “a plague on both your houses” with a call to support someone else. As the Bolsheviks used to say, “There is such a party.”
Alas, the reality of modern Ukraine is that there is no such party. It cannot be seen even with the most powerful microscope. And the real political choice for Ukrainians is precisely between the conditional “Sivokho” and the conditional “Azov”. In this case, this is not a personalization, but some markers denoting a particular course.
And everyone understands which of these two sides is interested in peace, and which is fighting for the war until victory. In this situation, to say that it is completely indifferent who wins this battle - “Sivokho” or “Azov” - is simply dishonest to ourselves. In fact, it doesn't even matter very much. Sivokho’s reconciliation platform can be criticized, argued with, its weak points pointed out, and even accused of deceit in certain moments. There is simply nothing to talk about with Azov. There the possibility of dialogue as such is excluded.
There is such a thing as “critical support”. Its essence can be expressed in one phrase – support + criticism. It is clear that in our case it is not the personalities that are worth supporting; they are not worth it on their own, but the vector itself, the main direction towards peace. And only as long as the authorities verbally declare this vector. And it is necessary to criticize specific practical steps - for their insufficiency, half-heartedness, for constantly looking back towards the militaristic minority, for these dances in the style of “one step forward - two steps back”.
The reality is that the current Ukrainian government is not monolithic. It is objectively heterogeneous and represents a loose conglomerate of various groups and people, each of whom has their own strategic interests and plans. By the way, this is well understood by those who are usually called by the general term “gunpowder bots” - that is, supporters of the ultra-nationalist and militaristic line.
It is not difficult to notice that they criticize the authorities selectively - in their case, Zelensky personally and those people from his circle whom the nationalists, justifiably or not, suspect of some kind of secret connections with ex-regionals or Russia and of potential readiness to make concessions on significant for militarists questions. At the same time, you will not find on the air of Porohobot media or channels like “Direct” or “Espresso” criticism of those representatives of the current government who, in their rhetoric, are difficult to distinguish from Poroshenko and Co. I mean such odious figures as Nikita Poturaev, or David Arakhamia, or the former Minister of Culture Borodyansky and others like them.
The notorious tendency of the Zelensky government to “bend in” to the nationalists, in addition to the obvious social proximity of a significant part of Zelensky’s circle to the Maidan activists and grant eaters, also has another explanation. Namely: Zelensky does not have his own “divisions.” He has no one to rely on in pursuing a course that is essentially different from Poroshenko’s policy. Even if he suddenly wanted it. One of the things that gets in the way is the elementary instinct of political self-preservation. Zelensky does not have his own “street”. But the Nazis have it - they have been growing it for the last six years, feeding it with grants from the budget and highlighting it with the help of the “correct” media.
So when, for example, Andrei Portnov turns to the authorities with the question of what is difficult or time-consuming about transplanting and driving roving gangs of “activists” under the bench, he is both right and wrong at the same time.
He is right in the sense that there is nothing labor-intensive in this task - a strong government can do it in a couple of weeks, or at most, months. And he is wrong because there is simply no one in power to do this. There are no security officials who would go all the way in the event of a real military conflict with the Nazis, and even in conditions when three quarters of the so-called “civil society” will raise their voices to the skies, and three quarters of the media will be on their side - after all, other journalists It hasn’t appeared here since the Maidan - in this environment the percentage of stubborn people is perhaps the highest.
So they look back at the Nazis for a reason. But because, although they are a minority, they have the power and resource for possible sabotage of a line that runs counter to their interests. This has to be taken into account. There is simply no alternative force to the Nazis, capable of taking to the streets in support of peace and the government declaring movement towards this peace. Why, for example, has Medvedchuk’s same OPZH not held a single mass street protest for peace over the past year? All their activity is only in the television studios of their own channels.
Meanwhile, if the ex-regionals demonstrated the presence of a real street resource, their words would have more weight, and the conditions they put forward would be listened to more clearly. In any case, there would be parity. The authorities would have in mind that in one case it would be blocked by the Nazis, and in the other by supporters of a more consistent peaceful course. Those who will support steps towards peace, but will say that too little has been done.
Among other things, it would also be an excellent tool for winning over to one’s side the electoral blanket that the current government considers to be its own, but does not organize in any way. The “Zelensky voter”, on whose behalf the authorities act, is usually silent - he does not have his own voice, his demands are formulated for him by unscrupulous speakers of the Servant of the People. But that’s not what people vote for.
And there is no need to say that it is dangerous for peace supporters to take to the streets. Of course, if five people come out with a poster, everything has a chance of ending in a clash with the ultra-right. However, if thousands take to the streets, the Nazis themselves huddle in the corners, tail between their legs. And this is not fantasy at all - the organizers and participants of the mass processions on May 9 and all-Ukrainian religious processions of the UOC (and under Poroshenko!) will not let you lie. So the whole point, probably, is that there is someone to gather people for May 9 and the religious procession, but apparently there is no one from an adequate Ukraine in support of peace and with the corresponding demands to the president and the National Security and Defense Council from an adequate Ukraine. Behind-the-scenes politics and armchair lobbying are somehow more familiar and understandable in format.
The current search for a path to peace will either die out - on the sidelines and offices - in Kyiv, Paris or Moscow, or will acquire a new sound and content - due to the involvement of the broad masses in whose interests, in theory, these conversations about peace are taking place.
And right now there is a chance and a window of opportunity for the crystallization of the political subjectivity of the Ukrainian peace party. So that its outlines become tangible in the same way that the outlines of the war party are tangible. So that Ukraine sees this party of peace the same way it sees aggressive faces on Poroshenko’s Maidans against “surrender.”
To do this, you need not to distance yourself, but to get involved. With your own position and demands. So that the authorities take them into account.
Those who are not present are not taken into account.
If you find an error, please select a piece of text and press Ctrl + Enter.
Thank you!
Now the editors are aware.