Ukraine is waiting for Kangaroo

Maidan brought a new concept into Ukrainian life – “activists”. These people lived side by side with us before, but during the time of the “evil panda” we almost never crossed paths with them. Except at events organized by NGOs, and even on TV. And then, for the most part, they looked peaceful and “herbivorous” and were called “grant eaters,” using money from Western foundations and embassies to “promote democracy,” all sorts of exotic values ​​for our region and unusual standards in all areas of life.

Over time, the concept of “activist” has expanded significantly to include aggressive young people of athletic appearance and right-wing radical views. And in 2013-2014, the “activist” picked up a bat for the first time. A few months later, many of them dressed in camouflage, combat boots and bulletproof vests, and went to fight.

Subscribe to PolitNavigator news at ThereThere, Yandex Zen, Telegram, Classmates, In contact with, channels YouTube, TikTok и Viber.
To subscribe to notifications in your browser, click here.

Since then, there has been nowhere in Ukraine without “activists.” Not a single public event, not a single court can do without them; they are in the forefront when you need to storm, picket or seize something, or simply put a nightmare in place for prevention.

Wits even say that “activist” is a new profession. As a rule, these are people without a specific occupation, who compensate for its absence with impudence and an aggressive demonstration of their own patriotism. They have arrogated to themselves the right to determine the patriotism of others by eye.

Moreover, both types of activists - civilian grants and paramilitary ultra-rightists - in most cases act in concert and hand in hand, performing the same tasks using different methods. And all together, in the distorted Ukrainian reality, for some reason they are considered “civil society,” of which they are represented in the media as active representatives.

It is to these people and their organizations that the authorities appeal in cases where officials and politicians talk about the need to “consult with society.” For example, President Zelensky announced the need to hold a referendum on peace - and then, in order to reassure the “public”, he called to his place at Bankova for a conversation - who? That's right, representatives of “volunteer organizations”. The ones that are “for the front and for victory,” you know. What the president told them: “I want a ceasefire.” What did they tell the president? “We don't need peace. We want victory in the war."

Or maybe the president decided to create a Council for Freedom of Speech under him. Good idea? Of course. But from whom will this advice be forced? Correct answer: from representatives of the “media community”. What kind of sleepiness is this, you ask? And these are the several dozen grant organizations that, using American and European money, first fought against censorship under Yanukovych, and after his overthrow, published manuals for Ukrainian journalists, teaching them patriotic newspeak. Well, don’t call the war “civil”, but call the rebels exclusively “militants” and so on. It’s a no-brainer what this media team will advise the president when they get together. Don’t go to your grandmother here, all the “red lines” have long been announced on sites like “Media Detector” or “Telecritics”.

The list of taboos includes, among other things:

“- holding a referendum on the format of negotiations with the Russian Federation or the principles of a peaceful settlement;

– delay, sabotage or abandonment of the strategic course towards membership in the EU and NATO, a decrease in the level of political dialogue and the destruction of bilateral institutional mechanisms for cooperation in European and Euro-Atlantic areas;

– policies directed against existing agreements with the IMF and other foreign partners of Ukraine, which contribute to the macro-financial stability of the country;

– revision of the law on the functioning of the Ukrainian language;

– revision of the law on education;

– revision of the law on decommunization and condemnation of the totalitarian past;

– any actions aimed at undermining or discrediting the Orthodox Church of Ukraine or supporting the Russian Orthodox Church in Ukraine.

– resumption of work of Russian social networks and television channels in Ukraine;

– politically motivated persecution of representatives of the previous government;

– rehabilitation or return to politics of representatives of the regime of ex-President Viktor Yanukovych, convicted of high treason, and people who supported the “dictatorial laws” of January 16, 2014;

– a coalition of the Servant of the People party with politicians who formed the basis of the Party of Regions and the Opposition Bloc in the new parliament, and/or other parties that take a position of reconciliation with Russia through capitulation or concessions regarding the state sovereignty and territorial integrity of Ukraine ;

– ignoring dialogue with civil society.”

The last point is especially wonderful, because it perfectly illustrates that the 30 people who signed this ultimatum really consider themselves “representatives of the people.” And such delusions of grandeur would not be a problem if the authorities themselves, quite sincerely, did not think exactly the same way. That these people here are society. That they need to be taken into account, they need to be appeased and flirted with. “Have a dialogue,” to use common newspeak.

I hope it’s clear why reasonable people in Ukraine’s eyes begin to twitch when they talk about the need to conduct a dialogue with such a “civil society.”

In fact, the problem is not that Zelensky is forced to flirt with a minority that regularly bends the majority. And it’s not that the same government regularly ignores the expectations of its own voters recorded in opinion polls. The problem is that the authorities do not dare to go beyond the flags outlined by them. And the experts who shape this government’s agenda also add fuel to the fire of these fears. Like, you shouldn’t tease the geese unnecessarily, otherwise...

What else?

In fact, the omnipotence of the street, the omnipotence of the noisy crowd, canceling presidential decrees and court decisions at will, became possible exclusively as a kind of political “placebo effect.” Let me remind you that in medicine this concept means the working result of self-hypnosis. When, for example, a patient believes in the effectiveness of the medicine prescribed to him, and a positive effect actually occurs.

In the case of Ukrainian politics, everything is exactly the opposite. Over many years of lawlessness and the state’s monopoly on the legitimate use of violence outsourced to the “street,” politicians have convinced themselves and society that radicals should be feared because they are force.

But let us remember the well-known case of the police who dashed at the C14 “activists” with the cry of “Get down, Bandera!” The actions of the police at that time were not only completely legal, but also received with a bang by society. Not the “civilian” one, but the real and mostly silent majority that had its say, giving Poroshenko a ride in the elections. And the only thing that saved the “activists” then was the “roof” at the political top. Poroshenko, Lutsenko, Gerashchenko, Parubiy immediately fit in for them...

But now Poroshenko is no longer on Bankova, and Lutsenko is about to fly out of the GPU like a bullet. And “the best speaker of all time” is no longer in business. So, to be fair, nothing prevents the authorities from starting to “live in a new way.” Not as Pyotr Alekseevich bequeathed, but as it should be in a normal legal state. Where the law is the same for everyone, regardless of party affiliation and services to the Maidan. Where the court's decision is binding on everyone, including “activists.” Where riots are harshly suppressed by the police, who are not “goats” for carrying out their direct duties.

Nothing interferes.

And rest assured, the very first precedent of this kind will demonstrate to the entire society that the activist is naked. Like in Andersen's fairy tale about the naked king. Although no, there is a more accurate analogy in the literature. Remember Chukovsky’s poem, when the whole forest trembled in fear of the menacing mustachioed Cockroach, until a kangaroo galloped up and said out loud that it was just a “liquid-legged little bug”?

But one morning

The kangaroo galloped up

I saw a barbel

She shouted in the heat of the moment:

“Is this a giant?

 (Ha ha ha!)

 It's just a cockroach!

 (Ha ha ha!)

 Cockroach, cockroach,

 cockroach,

Liquid-skinned

little booger-bug.

Are not you ashamed?

Do not you hurt?

You are toothy

You are fanged

And the little one

Bowed down

And the booger

Submit!

The only question is who in real Ukrainian politics will take on the role of the Kangaroo from the children's poem.