![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
nikpavl2002 [Ru]
nikpavl2002.dreamwidth.org/22087.html
[Eng]
There is an opinion that all revolutions are conceived by idealists, implemented by fanatics, and its fruits are stolen by scoundrels...
Since elementary school, we were told that during the revolution the most advanced and conscious part of the people will necessarily take responsibility and lead the struggle of these very people against their enslavers and oppressors. Well, it just simply can't be that people make a revolution without the very “advanced and conscious” part... And where will it come from, if in the comprehension of those “advanced and conscious” the people have always been just a means to achieve their personal goals. Even V. I. Lenin believed that the ideas of the revolution were introduced to the people by progressive representatives of those in power.
The Maidan has given birth in its depths to the hitherto unknown phenomenon of self-organization and self-government. It gave hope that for the first time the people will be able to solve their problems themselves, without resorting to the help of those whom the authorities of Ukraine have nominated as their leaders. We're talking about the so-called "opposition".
It's difficult to be the first when one and all are against you. The unceremoniousness and brassy impudence of the "opposition" in attempts to suppress the initiatives of the Maidan activists are simply shocking. But it could hardly be anything else! Because nothing less than a power that is about to slip out of their hands is at stake. The mere fact that the legitimate opposition leader is still imprisoned, and the “new leaders” did not even lift a finger to release her, says a lot [we’re talking about Yu. V. Timoshenko. – Translator's note].
The Ukrainian "opposition" suggests people choose lesser of two evils. Naturally, it identifies scilicet itself with a lesser evil. In fact, nothing will change in the country with its coming to power. As they say, "he who serves and treats a lady has her being willing and ready,"* and the "opposition" is fed from the hands of the oligarchs of Ukraine, who, for the purpose of personal enrichment, brought the current regime to power. *[At present the sense of this saying in the Post-Soviet culture has become broader and now is more about politics, business, etc., than sex, and generally means "you flash the cash, you get the play." – Translator's note].
The Maidan's Self-rule has two options to get out of the current situation.
The first is to convene the national Veche [denomination of popular assembly in ancient Rus. – Translator's note], at which the people will exercise their legal right and declare illegal the regime of the current System of Power in accordance with Art. 5 of the Constitution of Ukraine. It should elect the Savior Committee, which will engage in the establishment of public control over the processes within the country. In its competence, there will be the abolition of the current system of government as a social institution standing over the people, and the establishment of a system of the real rule of the people, the formation of the based on it new bodies of state government and local self-government.
For this purpose one doesn't need to reinvent the wheel. At the initial stage, it will be sufficient to reform the already existing state and local self-government bodies under the supervision of the Savior Committee, recruit to them top-class specialists and wean them off of the influence of business representatives, as well as corruption and other tools for enrichment by means of the exploitation of the majority. The Law should be equal for all, so that the life of society and the state will be actually built in accordance with the Article 3 of the Fundamental Law of Ukraine: "An individual, his life and health, honor and dignity, inviolability and security shall be recognized in Ukraine as the highest social value.
Human rights and freedoms, and guarantees thereof shall determine the essence and course of activities of the state. The state shall be responsible to the individual for its activities. Affirming and ensuring human rights and freedoms shall be the main duty of the State."
The second option is to free Yu. V. Timoshenko in order to jointly create a united front of struggle against the regime. Her experience in governing the State would allow overcoming crisis phenomena inside the country and restoring Ukraine’s international prestige. I think that during her stay in the prison camp she had enough time to see the true value of both her former comrades and enemies. Her position regarding the formation of Ukraine as a sovereign and independent State deserves respect.
The "opposition" in the person of Klitschko is seeking help and protection from the United States and Europe, hoping at the same time that it is they who will force the current government to voluntarily resign. Ukraine again runs the risk of becoming a hostage of the showdown between the US and Russia. At the same time, neither of them needs the Maidan with its self-rule.
Scilicet the first of the possible options does not suit the interested foreign participants in the process, in view of the refusal of the people of Ukraine from the usual "power–opposition" scheme and the transition to real self-government of the country. The "bad example" is infectious, which means that one can expect a repetition of something similar in other countries, which is highly undesirable for the United States, Europe, and Russia.
The second way does not exclude the scenario of the first one, but the participation of Yu. V. Timoshenko will make the process more “digestible” for the world community.
There is no point in hoping for help from outside. If there was the possibility for introducing foreign military formations into the territory of Ukraine without the threat of their complete loss of combat capability, then in 2004 it would cease to exist as a State and became part of a "single and indivisible one." This is a problem not only for Russia but also for the United States, which also failed to realize its military presence during Yushchenko’s presidency.
This is precisely the reason for the “uncertainty” of Ukraine’s status as a State. Neither Yushchenko nor Yanukovich wanted the country to attain real statehood but saw it either in the status of a mandated territory or as western regions of Russia. At one time, fraudulently, with the help of the United States, Yushchenko managed to become president of the country, although Yu. V. Timoshenko was the only real leader of the Maidan. If she and the leaders of the Maidan knew then that the United States didn't have the slightest touch on a bloodless victory, and Russia wasn't able to intervene in the territory of Ukraine, there would be no deal with Yushchenko and the US State Department. But history does not know the word "if."
Enough time has passed to understand: only the people of Ukraine have the right to decide what should it be, and the words “God loves Ukraine” are filled with real meaning.
nikpavl2002.dreamwidth.org/22087.html
[Eng]
There is an opinion that all revolutions are conceived by idealists, implemented by fanatics, and its fruits are stolen by scoundrels...
Since elementary school, we were told that during the revolution the most advanced and conscious part of the people will necessarily take responsibility and lead the struggle of these very people against their enslavers and oppressors. Well, it just simply can't be that people make a revolution without the very “advanced and conscious” part... And where will it come from, if in the comprehension of those “advanced and conscious” the people have always been just a means to achieve their personal goals. Even V. I. Lenin believed that the ideas of the revolution were introduced to the people by progressive representatives of those in power.
The Maidan has given birth in its depths to the hitherto unknown phenomenon of self-organization and self-government. It gave hope that for the first time the people will be able to solve their problems themselves, without resorting to the help of those whom the authorities of Ukraine have nominated as their leaders. We're talking about the so-called "opposition".
It's difficult to be the first when one and all are against you. The unceremoniousness and brassy impudence of the "opposition" in attempts to suppress the initiatives of the Maidan activists are simply shocking. But it could hardly be anything else! Because nothing less than a power that is about to slip out of their hands is at stake. The mere fact that the legitimate opposition leader is still imprisoned, and the “new leaders” did not even lift a finger to release her, says a lot [we’re talking about Yu. V. Timoshenko. – Translator's note].
The Ukrainian "opposition" suggests people choose lesser of two evils. Naturally, it identifies scilicet itself with a lesser evil. In fact, nothing will change in the country with its coming to power. As they say, "he who serves and treats a lady has her being willing and ready,"* and the "opposition" is fed from the hands of the oligarchs of Ukraine, who, for the purpose of personal enrichment, brought the current regime to power. *[At present the sense of this saying in the Post-Soviet culture has become broader and now is more about politics, business, etc., than sex, and generally means "you flash the cash, you get the play." – Translator's note].
The Maidan's Self-rule has two options to get out of the current situation.
The first is to convene the national Veche [denomination of popular assembly in ancient Rus. – Translator's note], at which the people will exercise their legal right and declare illegal the regime of the current System of Power in accordance with Art. 5 of the Constitution of Ukraine. It should elect the Savior Committee, which will engage in the establishment of public control over the processes within the country. In its competence, there will be the abolition of the current system of government as a social institution standing over the people, and the establishment of a system of the real rule of the people, the formation of the based on it new bodies of state government and local self-government.
For this purpose one doesn't need to reinvent the wheel. At the initial stage, it will be sufficient to reform the already existing state and local self-government bodies under the supervision of the Savior Committee, recruit to them top-class specialists and wean them off of the influence of business representatives, as well as corruption and other tools for enrichment by means of the exploitation of the majority. The Law should be equal for all, so that the life of society and the state will be actually built in accordance with the Article 3 of the Fundamental Law of Ukraine: "An individual, his life and health, honor and dignity, inviolability and security shall be recognized in Ukraine as the highest social value.
Human rights and freedoms, and guarantees thereof shall determine the essence and course of activities of the state. The state shall be responsible to the individual for its activities. Affirming and ensuring human rights and freedoms shall be the main duty of the State."
The second option is to free Yu. V. Timoshenko in order to jointly create a united front of struggle against the regime. Her experience in governing the State would allow overcoming crisis phenomena inside the country and restoring Ukraine’s international prestige. I think that during her stay in the prison camp she had enough time to see the true value of both her former comrades and enemies. Her position regarding the formation of Ukraine as a sovereign and independent State deserves respect.
The "opposition" in the person of Klitschko is seeking help and protection from the United States and Europe, hoping at the same time that it is they who will force the current government to voluntarily resign. Ukraine again runs the risk of becoming a hostage of the showdown between the US and Russia. At the same time, neither of them needs the Maidan with its self-rule.
Scilicet the first of the possible options does not suit the interested foreign participants in the process, in view of the refusal of the people of Ukraine from the usual "power–opposition" scheme and the transition to real self-government of the country. The "bad example" is infectious, which means that one can expect a repetition of something similar in other countries, which is highly undesirable for the United States, Europe, and Russia.
The second way does not exclude the scenario of the first one, but the participation of Yu. V. Timoshenko will make the process more “digestible” for the world community.
There is no point in hoping for help from outside. If there was the possibility for introducing foreign military formations into the territory of Ukraine without the threat of their complete loss of combat capability, then in 2004 it would cease to exist as a State and became part of a "single and indivisible one." This is a problem not only for Russia but also for the United States, which also failed to realize its military presence during Yushchenko’s presidency.
This is precisely the reason for the “uncertainty” of Ukraine’s status as a State. Neither Yushchenko nor Yanukovich wanted the country to attain real statehood but saw it either in the status of a mandated territory or as western regions of Russia. At one time, fraudulently, with the help of the United States, Yushchenko managed to become president of the country, although Yu. V. Timoshenko was the only real leader of the Maidan. If she and the leaders of the Maidan knew then that the United States didn't have the slightest touch on a bloodless victory, and Russia wasn't able to intervene in the territory of Ukraine, there would be no deal with Yushchenko and the US State Department. But history does not know the word "if."
Enough time has passed to understand: only the people of Ukraine have the right to decide what should it be, and the words “God loves Ukraine” are filled with real meaning.
Feb. 3rd, 2014