By Ilya Murom
November 21: While in Kiev, Ukrainians celebrate the third anniversary of the Euromaidan, in the Donetsk and Lugansk People’s Republics, the so-called anti-terrorist operation of the Armed Forces of Ukraine continues against the civilian population of Donbass. The correspondent of the Federal News Agency spoke with a political analyst on the outcome of the Maidan.
According to the DPR Ministry of Defense, the Ukrainian army last night unleashed 130 mines and artillery shells of caliber 82 and 120 millimeters on the territory of the republic. Under attack, as they routinely are, were the towns of Trudovskoy, Oleksandrivka (on the western outskirts of Donetsk), an industrial zone near the village of Yasinovataya, Sahanka and Novoazovskiy area of Leniniski district, and Sosnovskoe area of Telmanovskiy district.
Political analyst Victor Shapinov, in an interview with FAN, said that many called the events on the Maidan three years ago in Ukraine a revolution: supporters of the Ukrainian regime used this word with a “plus” and opponents with a “minus.” Three years later, it should be clear to all that Euromaidan was directed not at changing, but at preserving the system of dependent oligarchic capitalism and its corresponding social hierarchy in Ukraine.
“No wonder the natural consequence of the Maidan was the election of the President-oligarch Poroshenko, and the appointment of oligarchs and their henchmen to leadership in key regions of the country. That is why, despite its ‘revolutionary’ form, the Maidan was and remains a deeply conservative and reactionary movement. The connection of ‘revolutionary’ form with reactionary content is well-known in the history of the 20th century. Fascist movements of the 1920s-1930s called their rise to power a ‘national’ or ‘conservative’ revolution, while, as we know, the fascist regimes where dedicated to safeguarding the socio-economic system during its crisis, rather than bringing about its revolutionary transformation.
“During Euromaidan, the Ukrainian oligarchy managed to use this method of recovery from the crisis, shifting all its weight onto the shoulders of ordinary Ukrainians – we see this happening again, with the “gift” of new bills and tariffs on the third anniversary of the “revolution of dignity.” The price of such a withdrawal was the monstrous division of society, in which one part was actually pitted against another,” says Shapinov.
According to the expert, the unifying factor was the idea of the superiority of supporters of European integration and followers of Ukrainian chauvinism over the supporters of integration with the post-Soviet space. The slogan of European integration, in turn, is seen as a realizable way to join the modern the “master race” — the privileged population of the European Union countries. Consequently, they mark their supporters as an elite group that opposes the “backward” strata of the population (“quilted jackets,” “Colorado beetles,” “Donetsk cattle”: You may recall many descriptions for opponents of Maidan and supporters of Novorossiya and the Donbass people’s republics), thus resulting in a fusion of social racism and ethno-linguistic chauvinism.
“Such a political system, based on pitting one group at the ‘bottom’ against another to benefit the oligarchy, could not help but lead to a significant increase in the influence of the extreme chauvinists and outright fascists, who since the beginning of the punitive operation in the Donbass have also became a serious military force. But the more significant shift was not the appearance of the ultra-right on the political scene, where, by and large, they were only a junior partner of the authorities. More striking was the tectonic shift to the right of mainstream politicians. Today’s rhetoric by Poroshenko, Yatseniuk, and so on, is often to the right of the rhetoric of [neo-Nazis] Tyahnybok and Yarosh before 2014.
“Moreover, the Ukrainian events legitimized ultra-right and fascist ideas for a particular part of the political spectrum across the whole post-Soviet space. In particular, as a result of the Ukrainian events, we can now see this among Moscow’s pro-Western liberals, who joined the ‘Russian march,’ and included ultra-nationalist Maltsev as second on the electoral list of the liberal party ‘Parnassus.’
“As a result of the coup in 2014, Ukrainian capitalism has become more dependent, more oligarchic, more corrupt than it was under Yanukovych. In 2014, the Ukrainian oligarchy made its choice, exchanging the possibility of independent economic development to join the West in the ranks of its economic colonies,” summed up Victor Shapinov.
Translated by Greg Butterfield