“…The Kremlin’s entire media apparatus has been brought to Rostov. That is why I personally consider this show as another PR action against ‘the illegitimate junta in Kyiv’ right around Euromaidan’s anniversary,” wrote Ukraine’s Prosecutor General Yurii Lutsenko on the eve of Viktor Yanuko vych’s “distance interrogation.”
And so it happened.
The Kremlin’s design succeeded, and even better than was expected. Instead of one episode of the reality show Yanukovych’s Interrogation full two of them were shown on TV: a press conference and the former president’s proper testimony, live.
There was no legally substantiated need to hold a meeting between the court and an important witness exactly in such a way, live on air. If it had been necessary to obtain the former president’s testimony, say experts, one should have sent a special task force to Rostov-on-Don and perform all the necessary formalities directly on the site. Numerous lawyers believe that the format of a distance interrogation, in front of cameras, is absolutely at odds with the requirements of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine.
Moreover, in any normal court of law the judge will interrupt a witness who is making an unrelated statement. Yanukovych was never interrupted, so he jumped at the opportunity and poured out an endless flow of statements (prefabricated by Russian political technologists), including some accusations. Watching the show Sviatoshyn Court to Rostov-on-Don, one could not help getting a recurrent feeling that it was Yanukovych who played the role of prosecutor and judge.
That is why this “interrogation” of Yanukovych in Rostov-on-Don does not deserve to be called anything else but a show directed from outside Ukraine.
What are the results of the public interrogation of Yanukovych, broadcasting of his press conference, and broad discussion of these events in the media?
Firstly, the legitimation of the former president as part of Ukraine’s political reality. The ex-president has already made a comeback into the information field, becoming a full-fledged newsmaker. The next step could be adding his name to the list of political leaders, or even presidential candidates, in one of the opinion polls to follow.
Secondly, the promotion of the so-called alternative view on the Maidan events. The ex-president’s (actually, the Kremlin’s) “picture of the world” boils down to this: there are no innocent victims, no Heavenly Hundred, but there is a “civil conflict” in which a priori there are no right or wrong parties. And this picture of the world has for the first time been broadly promoted by the media.
Thirdly, Yanukovych appearing in the boob tube distracted Ukrainians from the current problems. Frustrated visa-free expectations, shooting and shelling in the ATO zone, exorbitant utility prices, everything recedes into the background. Thanks to the Sviatoshyn district court and the media, people saw the long-forgotten object of their hatred, and the feelings flared up again.
Some think that this effect was expected by the incumbents in Kyiv: people would listen to Yanukovych, see how evil he is, and will be more benevolent towards Poroshenko.
Maybe, some planned it like this. But the Kremlin’s PR action is by definition part and parcel of the hybrid war against Ukraine. If some of the current incumbents had wanted to get political dividends from a reality show starring Yanukovych, they succeeded, it could not have happened otherwise.
Society never heard any final verdict on the beatings of protesters on November 30 or on the shootings of the Heavenly Hundred. None of the former high-placed officials were made accountable for the deaths. Instead of an investigation, we keep hearing political accusations, each time of new figures with well-known names, as major culprits of the dramas of November 2013 and January and February 2014. And here, against the backdrop of the helpless Ukrainian justice, the former head of the state pops up. He fulminates, denounces, and accuses.
What kind of conclusions could have people made, after they listened to the ex-president’s speeches?
A. Some in the government have betrayed the ideals of Maidan and made a deal with the Russians and Yanukovych. That is why he was allowed to appear on television.
B. One part of Ukraine’s political establishment has made a deal with Putin and is waging a war against another part with the help of the Kremlin and Yanukovych as its agent.
C. The government in Kyiv is good for nothing, so Yanukovych and his masters do whatever they please with Ukraine’s justice and information space.
The bottom line of the farce with the so-called interrogation of the Rostov witness – and this is the fourth result of the Kremlin’s PR action – is that the entire administration in Kyiv was humiliated and discredited, and the nation even more destabilized, with an increased threat of revanche from the former regime.
Why and what for did the domestic media broadcast the ex-president’s speech so enthusiastically and discuss them so extensively? Were they unaware of the consequences, or were they politically engaged and instructed “from above” to provide this particular coverage of events?
While answering this question, one should bear in mind that for our media, enthusing over the “standards of objective journalism,” it is absolutely normal to broadcast statements which are blatantly hostile towards Ukraine and to provide a platform to open enemies. So, Yanukovych’s appearance on television and on the pages of Ukrainian papers is no surprise at all. Yet such extensive, excessive presence of the ex-president in the information space arouses suspicions of a directed PR campaign of “The Legitimate,” orchestrated by the owners of media holdings following some shady deals either with the Ukrainian presidential administration, or with the Kremlin. However, given the ins and outs of the media in Ukraine, another version seems quite probable: many journalists simply sought high audience ratings for their programs, without giving the consequences and own responsibility a second thought.
Thus, Russia’s hybrid special operation was carried out successfully, thanks to Ukrainian justice and, sadly, thanks to Ukrainian media.
