Ukraine is not a democratic state

This article is not about whether Russia is the aggressor or whether Ukraine has the right to defend itself, since this is not denied by any reasonable person. But peace-loving people who demand diplomacy not military action…are constantly being interrogated, which testifies to the dishonest intentions and methods of those who distort the meaning of our simple words. Below I look at the essence of the current regime in Ukraine, about which Western elites… are silent to ensure their primitive propaganda about “good Ukraine and bad Russia” does not fall apart like a house of cards. For Europe, however, ignorance about domestic political events in Ukraine can have fatal consequences.

Awarding of the Sakharov Prize “For Freedom of Thought” to “the brave Ukrainian people in the person of their President” is a punch in the face for all those who follow what is happening in Ukraine. Just days earlier, Ukrainian courts had finally banned eleven opposition parties as “pro-Russian.” Ukrainian sociologist, Volodymyr Ishchenko, who works at the Institute for Eastern European Studies in Berlin, noted that this designation was incorrect, and that after Maidan, such labelling began to be used to discredit all political forces that either stood for the neutrality and sovereignty of Ukraine, or adhere to views that in the West are considered left-wing. All the banned parties have criticized the pro-Western, neo-liberal and nationalist course of Ukraine, which has dominated Ukrainian politics since the 2014 coup, even though it doesn’t reflect the heterogeneity of Ukrainian society.

Ishchenko also claims that no one has ever proven the connection of these parties with Russia and, even more absurdly, several leaders of these parties have themselves been subject to Russian sanctions. Some of these parties are completely marginal, while others enjoy significant public support in regions inhabited by the Russian minority. Three of the banned parties received a total of 2.7 million votes (18.3%) in the last parliamentary elections in 2019. Moreover, before the Russian special operation, their ratings reached 20% in the polls. The fact that they represent the interests of the eastern regions does not mean they are controlled by Moscow. Their funding sources, as well as their autonomous political interests, are of Ukrainian origin.

Other banned parties on Zelensky’s list are left-wing. Back in 2015, Ukraine banned the activities of communist parties…Today, left-wing parties are accused of insufficient patriotism, although each of their leaders and each of their sponsors have condemned the Russian special operation and made a large and well-attested contribution to Ukraine’s defence. Independent Ukrainian analysts now mostly live in exile, which testifies that the ban on opposition parties is not connected with objective security measures. The reason for the ban is that after Maidan the space for dissent narrowed; the liquidation of the opposition has nothing to do with patriotism – only a lunatic can believe such propaganda. The aim is to strengthen Zelensky’s political power, and that began long before the Russian special military operation. The Ukrainian government has been imposing sanctions on opposition media for two years now, although it has yet to provide conclusive evidence of their guilt or anti-state activities. Take Viktor Medvedchuk, whose party was banned after polls showed he had more support than Zelensky’s Servant of the People party and could win the next parliamentary election.

Ukrainian opposition virtually eliminated

Politicians and the media in Ukraine have long criticized Zelensky’s state-level practice of targeting opposition parties. These measures emanate from a narrow group of people who participate in the meetings of Ukraine’s National Security and Defense Council. They are then accepted without any democratic discussion. These sanctions have a very dubious legal basis and critics point out that their aim is to advance the corrupt interests of the Zelensky junta. However, not a drop of this criticism penetrates the Western mainstream media. As an example, I can cite not only the materials of Ukrainian experts living in exile, but also the words of Nina Potarskaya, coordinator of the International Women’s League for Peace and Freedom. In her opinion, opposition in Ukraine has been eliminated. A month ago, she came to us in Bratislava, but not a single media outlet was willing to take an exclusive interview with her.

We appreciate that Ukraine is in great danger. But Zelenskiy’s actions only weaken the country even more and ultimately help Vladimir Putin. Such dismantling of democratic principles may encourage some Ukrainians to collaborate with Russia, especially if they are subjected to political persecution and believe that they have no political future in Ukraine. The US and EU turn a blind eye to the undemocratic practices of the Zelensky regime, but that could boomerang on them in the future. The stronger Zelensky becomes, the more he looks like a dictator. Banning the activities of the main opposition parties in Ukraine, he simultaneously unified all TV channels into one monopoly state television and announced a “single information policy”, which he rationalised as “exposing the meanness of the personal ambitions of those who put their own ambitions, their party or career above the interests of the state and the people” and threatened “politicians from any camp” with “cruel retribution”, which was sadly reminiscent of 1938 when the chairman of the autonomous [Slovak] government, Josef Tiso, announced a ban on political parties and the opposition.

So, I ask once again those who choose the winners of the Sakharov Prize: are you joking when you award a prestigious prize for freedom of thought to a man with manifestly dictatorial powers? I remind you that not a single Western leader condemned these undemocratic steps. None supported the Ukrainian democratic opposition. Ukrainian liberals are in uncompromising opposition to the government of Volodymyr Zelensky, but our progressive leaders and Western European liberals support not them, but the ultranationalist Ukrainian regime. It is scarcely believable that conservative Polish Prime Minister, Mateusz Morawiecki, speaking at a conference on the post-war reconstruction of Ukraine in Berlin, said that those who do not support Ukraine in the fight against Russian forces have either betrayed the values of Western civilization, or Russia has brainwashed them. Who, I ask you, brainwashed those Europeans who forget that until recently they accused the Polish government of a lack of democracy, and yet today they applaud that government as well as the undemocratic regime in Ukraine? They have forgotten that Zelensky’s government is undemocratic. Our progressive politicians say the Kyiv regime is a normal democracy but the Index of Democracy classifies Ukraine as a hybrid.

There was no democracy in Ukraine after Maidan

The ban and state liquidation of opposition parties exposes the lie that “Ukraine is a preserve of democracy” and is waging a “just war against totalitarian Russia.” In fact, Ukraine is still run by the same oligarchy that was born after the collapse of the Soviet Union and which, in order to maintain its power, has chosen an open alliance with NATO. After Maidan, democracy was raped more than once, removing all new left-wing parties from the political scene. Instead, the far-right and oligarchic rivals of deposed President Viktor Yanukovych flourished.

Before the elections, Petro Poroshenko promised he would quickly establish peace. But after the elections, within a few weeks, he made a 180-degree turn and, instead of starting negotiations with the rebels, brought down the entire military force on them. After the indirect intervention of Moscow in August 2014, this strategy failed, and so the Minsk process began, first in September 2014, and then in February 2015, after another escalation of the conflict and defeat of Ukraine’s armed forces. The Minsk agreements spelled out the conditions for reconciliation: Ukraine’s recognition of elections in rebel-controlled regions, the Ukrainian government’s renunciation of border control, and special autonomy status for Donbass within Ukraine.

Zelensky’s main rival, the banned Opposition Platform For Life, has supported implementation of the Minsk agreements throughout its existence. Despite the fact that Zelensky won the election precisely because of his promises to make peace with the rebels, after coming to power he openly went against the Minsk agreements. Zelensky explained this by the fact that the implementation of Minsk 1 and Minsk 2 would have turned into a catastrophe and a civil war for Ukraine, since Ukrainian society would never, in his opinion, accept such a surrender. There was a grain of truth in these words: this is how the ultra-right perceived the Minsk agreements. They frankly threatened the government with reprisals if the agreements were implemented. Everyone remembers 2015, when parliament voted on a special status for Donetsk and Lugansk, as demanded by Minsk 2. Then a supporter of the Ukrainian fascist party Svoboda threw a grenade at the police, and as a result, four people were killed and dozens injured.

Vladimir Zelensky as Ukrainian Matovich [an unpopular Slovak politician]

Here it is necessary to explain that in Ukraine “Europeanness” is understood differently than in the countries of the European Union. Pro-European people in Western Europe stay away from the far right. In Ukraine, we see an absurd mixture of ultranationalism, neoliberalism and Atlanticism as a coalition of pro-European views. The opposition is not formed by the “pro-Russian camp”. The opposition in Ukraine are the adherents of sovereignty and neutrality. Before the 2019 elections, when Petro Poroshenko’s approval ratings were nearing zero, he began to promote a nationalist agenda (some even note that he campaigned in the same way as the far right had done before Maidan). Zelensky then managed to unite a huge part of society against the nationalist ideas of Petro Poroshenko. Even part of the left voted for Zelensky, because they thought that under his leadership it would be easier for them to breathe. But very soon it became clear that Zelensky not only did not have a real party, but did not even have a real team that could professionally pursue the declared policy.

His first government lasted about six months. He then removed the head of his cabinet, and constant ministerial reshuffles began. The absence of a serious team quickly led Zelensky to the same track as his predecessor, Petro Poroshenko. Zelensky became the prey of the strongest groups in Ukrainian politics: oligarchic clans, radical nationalists, liberal think tanks and Western powers. All of them promoted their own agenda and had high expectations of radical change. In this trap, Zelensky first tried to build his own vertical of power, typical of post-Soviet elites. It was a certain type of weak Bonapartism or Caesarism, when the elected leader attacked the right and the left, the nationalists and the Russian minority, thus trying to eliminate contradictions in society and concentrate all power in his hands. However, Zelensky did not succeed. He acted rather unpredictably, and everything ended in such chaos that at the end of 2021 he was threatened with a new Maidan, from which he was saved by the Russian special operation.

You need to understand that before the Russian special operation, Zelensky had failed on all fronts. Even Poroshenko withstood the pressure of the International Monetary Fund better than Zelensky. It would not be an exaggeration to say that Zelensky has become a kind of Ukrainian Matovich, that is, a comedian without a specific plan. Before the outbreak of hostilities, he had the gloomiest prospects. He had made so many enemies that it was likely they would unite and get rid of him. Public opinion polls also did not bode well for him: he was even bypassed by Poroshenko. Zelensky tried to wriggle out of it by talking about weakening the powers of the president and changing his function to a predominantly ceremonial one. In such a role, it would be easier for him, because he could completely rely on his acting talent. But the special military operation changed everything, and Zelensky turned into a most popular leader, who gradually began to usurp power.

Today, Ukraine is one of the few countries in the world that has not managed to achieve the standard of living of 1990. We can all agree on one thing. Since Maidan, Ukraine has accumulated a huge number of problems: a predatory oligarchy, growing dependence on Western powers, the radicalization of nationalist forces, increased repression of opposition, and narrowing the space for political pluralism. But no matter how many problems there are, Ukraine can cope with them all on its own -without Russian tanks and missiles, as well as without Western neo-colonial intervention.

There is no point in forcibly re-educating Ukraine, changing its Banderite identity to Little Russian, just as it is not worth giving it to Western interests for plunder. Ukraine needs sovereignty and independence. If we use Ukraine in the anti-Russian campaign, if Brussels and Kyiv demand nothing from each other, we will not strengthen the country’s independence, but the power of a single oligarchic junta, which is increasingly moving away from European criteria. If we want to help Ukraine, then we must demand that it meets the same democratic standards that everyone who wanted to join the single family of European states had to achieve. Otherwise, we are fattening up a monster that will soon get out of hand.