Over a hundred people were killed in downtown Kyiv three years ago, on February 18-20. Following that, Viktor Yanukovych fled the country and those who had stood at the “stage of Euromaidan” came to power. Do they have anything to tell their people today?
President Petro Poroshenko: “The fateful events that occurred three years ago in the very heart of Ukraine shook the entire world. The heroic deed of the Heavenly Hundred is our national pride, and it made wresting Ukraine from tenacious claws of the predatory Russian two-headed eagle and turning it into a prosperous European nation our unquestioned goal.”
Speaker of the Verkhovna Rada Andrii Parubii: “The heroic deed of the Heavenly Hundred was not in vain, as it became the foundation of a renewed nation and unity of the people. Events of the Euromaidan caused a fundamental change in the souls, hearts, and minds of the Ukrainian people. The Revolution of Dignity has forever changed and united our people.”
Chairman of the Cabinet of Ministers Volodymyr Hroisman: “We will always remember those who paid with their lives for our freedom, for our desire to live in a country where justice is king and people are the most valuable treasure. Along with all Ukrainians, I am bowing my head before the Euromaidan dead and express deep condolences to their families and friends.”
Secretary of the National Security and Defense Council Oleksandr Turchynov: “It is important that the memory of the heroes is not used as a cover for politicking and extremism, as well as inaction and treason. Heroes of the Heavenly Hundred sacrificed their lives so that Ukraine could live as an independent, democratic and European nation. Our duty is to do everything to make it happen!”
All these words were said by top officials on February 20, the Heavenly Hundred Heroes Memorial Day. Do people believe these words? Based on the level of trust in the government bodies and particular officials, the vast majority do not. Why is it so?
“The Euromaidan, the Revolution of Dignity, the Heavenly Hundred, civil and military volunteers, civil society – all that has become iconic in this country over recent years – it all is genetically alien to the ruling class and government,” political strategist Serhii Haidai posted on Facebook. “It all was perceived by them as a disaster, an upheaval, a trouble. They felt that a foolishly nonsensical thing suddenly came out of nowhere and collapsed their measured and well-fed life. Do you remember Vladimir Putin’s phrase that the collapse of the Soviet Union was the greatest geopolitical catastrophe of the century? Most of the current occupants of offices in Bankova and Hrushevskoho streets think about the events of 2013-14 in the same way. Yes, of course, the most cunning of them know how to use upheavals profitably, and successfully did so in 2014. One family fled, while another took its place at the table where the national wealth is looted. However, life is now riskier. The air always smells of lynching. Apart from the fear, they also have to engage in a lot of pretending, since all these ‘Plyve Kacha’ or ‘Glory to the Heroes’ are felt by them as hostile and disgusting.”
More than a hundred people killed during the Euromaidan were the price paid for past mistakes, unreformed country, and lost time. But what was this sacrifice for? What is the result? A few years later, it becomes increasingly clear that those killed during the Euromaidan were a tool in the hands of both domestic and geopolitical players. However, Den/The Day warned from the very beginning that civic activists should have played their own game and be a subject, not an object during these complicated events. Still, the beneficiaries included certain clans within the country and outside forces, but not the Euromaidan itself.
“I am probably the only mayor of a major city to have publicly supported the ‘blockade’ of the occupied Donbas,” Dnipro Mayor Borys Filatov wrote on Facebook. “As a result, do you know who called me? It was not the Security Service, the Presidential Administration or the Prosecutor General’s Office. No, I and my press office received a flurry of calls from the media that are affiliated with Russia and the group of Zakharchenko-Klymenko-Kurchenko. I swear by God it was so... Think about it. Also, I have always defended here Volodymyr (Vova) Parasiuk and Semen (Sema) Semenchenko. My long-standing readers know that this is true. Vova and Sema, you are two useful idiots. I am ready to tell you this in person.”
The public is ambiguous in its attitude towards the “blockade” of the occupied Donbas. There are both those who support the initiative of the activists and those opposed to it. This is clear from a survey that we conducted on our website as well. We asked our online readers: What is your attitude towards the so-called “blockade” of the occupied territories, maintained by individual volunteers and MPs? We received the following answers: positive, it is the Kremlin that should be held responsible for their welfare – 14 percent (47 votes); positive, smuggling and trade with the aggressor should be stopped – 63 percent (205 votes); negatively, it alienates from us Ukrainians leaving on the other side – 12 percent (39 votes); negative, they pay taxes to Ukraine anyway – 7 percent (24 votes); I do not care – 4 percent (13 votes).
In fact, the ambiguous public attitude can be easily explained. The lack of a clear policy of the current government from the beginning of Russian aggression (is it a war or an anti-terrorist operation?), the lack of clarity in the economic relationship with the Kremlin and the occupied territories (are we fighting or trading?), and the atmosphere of half-measures and super-cynicism they created in virtually every regard – they trigger similar processes and attitudes in response. That is, the government’s “hybrid” policies create “hybrid” reactions, both among our public and in treatment of this country by international partners. Also, one should not forget that there are always forces, both inside and outside this country, that are ready to use chaos and weakness to their advantage.
Accordingly, the results include so-called “peace plans,” that have been recently emerging one by one. First there were “painful compromises” from Viktor Pinchuk, which caused a veritable flurry of negative reaction and was followed almost immediately by Vasyl Filipchuk’s article with similar proposals. And now we have another plan, produced by MP Andrii Artemenko. However, his party boss, leader of the Radical Party Oleh Liashko has already urged him to resign his seat (this has a lot to do with composition of party lists, has not it?).
So, Artemenko allegedly proposed to US President Donald Trump an alternative peace plan for the Ukrainian-Russian conflict, which was delivered to him through Trump’s former adviser Michael Flynn. It was covered by The New York Times. According to the publication, Artemenko delivered the plan through the businessman Felix Slater and Trump’s lawyer Michael Cohen. “A lot of people will call me a Russian agent, a US agent, a CIA agent. But how can you find a good solution between our countries if we do not talk?” the Ukrainian MP told NYT. “Essentially, his plan would require the withdrawal of all Russian forces from eastern Ukraine and a referendum whether Crimea, the Ukrainian territory seized by Russia in 2014, would be leased to Russia for a term of 50 years,” the newspaper notes.
“Such MPs must be stripped of their mandate,” MP Ihor Lutsenko told The Day. “Let me recall that we expelled Nadia Savchenko from the Fatherland Party for statements less offensive than those of Artemenko. To my knowledge, Artemenko came to the Rada on the Radicals’ list as part of the ‘Serhii Liovochkin quota.’ So most likely, Liovochkin and Russia are behind his statements.”
