What is the Orange Revolution? Orange Revolution in Ukraine What does the Orange Revolution mean?

Ukraine, as a young and independent state, is gradually moving towards economic and social well-being. The basis of this well-being is directly the political system of the country. But the formation of this system does not always occur peacefully.

The year 2004 became a turning point in the political history of Ukraine, when the entire country was rocked by the Orange Revolution. What became the prerequisite for the popular uprising? Perhaps the main emphasis should be on the economic component. After all, it was the thirst for economic well-being and social change that motivated the people at that time.

The Orange Revolution is a set of protest rallies, strikes and other actions of general disobedience, the main organizers of which were supporters of the opposition candidate for the post of president of the country in the 2004 election race, Viktor Yushchenko.

On the eve of 2004, society began to form an opinion about the coming to power of a certain political-economic group that would carry out its reforms by force. This group was associated primarily with one of the presidential candidates, namely Viktor Yanukovych.

But as further developments of events indicate, there was nothing to fear. Since the next ones were won by Viktor Yanukovych, whose policies have a very positive effect on the development of Ukraine.

The Orange Revolution (or rather the first protests) began after the first preliminary announcement of the results by the Central Election Commission. According to the counted votes, V. Yushchenko's rival, V. Yanukovych, became the winner. But it was too early to congratulate the winner, since the decision instructed the Central Election Commission to conduct a second round of voting.

The Ukrainian people began to actively protest against the announced decision. The main reason for the protests was distrust in the official results, as well as accusations of massive voter fraud. The poisoning of one of the candidates, namely Viktor Yushchenko, with an unknown poison also played a role. It was also alarming that the data from preliminary surveys, so-called exit polls, showed completely opposite results.

Every day more and more people took part in the protests, and the Orange Revolution gained momentum. Activists from the people, no matter what, defended their opinion. The second round of elections also did not give the desired result, but the revolutionaries did not give up. A re-vote in the second round brought the desired victory, and Viktor Yushchenko was elected president.

Why was the mass movement in Ukraine called the “Orange Revolution”? Most likely, the reason for this was the coloring of the symbols of the candidate in whose support the people spoke, namely orange tones.

In the history of independent Ukraine, this revolution was one of the most massive; before this, there had been no such unrest. The Ukrainian people decided to demonstrate their opinion to the whole world, which was most likely dictated by dissatisfaction with their social situation and the slow progress of economic reforms.

As for the results of the Orange Revolution, first of all, freedom of speech and expression of will, since it was peaceful in nature, and forceful methods were practically not used. The main victory was that people realized the power of their words and their actions, got the opportunity to convey their opinions to a wide range of people, the opportunity to achieve their goals. Although after every revolution, and the Orange Revolution in Ukraine was no exception, disappointment remains.

At the end of 2004, regular presidential elections were held in Ukraine. And after Viktor Yanukovych became the winner, supporters of another candidate, Viktor Yushchenko, accused Yanukovych of dishonesty and falsification of the voting results. In support of Yushchenko, a Maidan was organized in Kyiv, consisting of his supporters, everyone was dressed in orange clothes, everything around was orange, ribbons, flags, fruits.

Causes of the Orange Revolution.

The reason for this orange color was Yushchenko's election campaign, for which this color was symbolic. The main initiator of calling people to the rally was Yulia Tymoshenko, who supported Yushchenko with all her might.

Since at that time there was political confusion in the country, resulting in an economic crisis, chaos, devastation and the unwillingness of the authorities to do anything to improve the situation, the orange protest was supported by a lot of people. About 200 thousand people gathered on Maidan. The most important complaint was Yanukovych’s criminal past, falsification of election results and, due to this, the impossibility of governing the country.

The Orange Revolution was entirely peaceful and carefully planned. The main demand of the protesting revolutionaries was a review of the voting results.

Results of the Orange Revolution.

The protesters' demands were met. The Supreme Court ruled on re-elections, which were scheduled for December 26, 2004. Viktor Yushchenko became president with a small margin of votes.

The Orange Revolution in Ukraine shows by its example that it is possible to peacefully and legally not only express one’s opinion, but also achieve the desired results. However, these results do not always turn out to be the real opinion of the people; in this case, it is simply an excellent job of political strategists, and now we will explain why.

After Yushchenko's appointment as president, the country did not rise from its knees and overcome the crisis. He did not fulfill a single promise that was replete with his election campaign. And as a consequence of this, in the next presidential elections less than 5% of the population supported him.

The name “orange revolution” arose because the color of Viktor Yushchenko’s banner was orange; and orange ribbons and scarves were used as a distinctive sign of Yushchenko’s supporters. Orange also became a symbol of the revolution. Supporters of Viktor Yanukovych had blue or blue-white banners.

The leaders of the Orange Revolution were presidential candidate Viktor Yushchenko and Yulia Tymoshenko, with whom Yushchenko (in the summer of 2004) signed an agreement that after victory he would appoint her to the post of prime minister.

The center of the Orange Revolution was Maidan - Independence Square in the center of Kyiv, where a continuous rally and a tent camp of protesters took place for about two months. Rallies on the Maidan on some especially significant days attracted up to half a million people.

It is believed that the Orange Revolution began on November 22, 2004, when a rally of thousands of supporters of presidential candidate Yushchenko under orange flags began to gather in the central square of Kyiv - Independence Square. Protesters set up dozens of tents and began an open-ended protest.

The protests were caused by the Central Election Commission (CEC) announcing preliminary results of the presidential election, according to which Yushchenko's rival, Prime Minister Viktor Yanukovych, won. Subsequently, the Supreme Court of Ukraine overturned the CEC's decision on the election results and ordered it to hold a second round of voting again. The protesters managed to force the Ukrainian authorities to wait for the decision of the Supreme Court and, based on its decision to recognize the voting results in the second round as falsified, to re-hold the second round of voting in the presidential election. As a result of the re-vote (second round re-vote), Viktor Yushchenko won.

The main political force that supported Yushchenko was the “Power of the People” coalition (which united Yushchenko’s Our Ukraine bloc and Yulia Tymoshenko’s bloc). The Socialist Party of Ukraine also signed an agreement to support Yushchenko. Our Ukraine included about a dozen national-democratic parties, including the People's Movement of Ukraine and the Ukrainian People's Party.

Yushchenko was supported mainly by the western and central regions of Ukraine (including Kyiv), while Yanukovych was supported mainly by the eastern and southern regions.

Public opinion in the Russian Federation was on the side of Viktor Yanukovych, and in Western countries - on the side of the Ukrainian opposition. A number of statesmen from European countries acted as mediators between the opposing forces - the most actively involved were the President of Poland Kwasniewski, the Commissioner of the European Union (former NATO Secretary General) Javier Solana, the President of Lithuania Valdas Adamkus, and the ex-President of Poland Lech Walesa.

The change in the government of Ukraine that occurred as a result of the Orange Revolution and the associated reorientation of the country’s domestic and foreign policy (for more details, see Foreign Policy of Ukraine) gave rise to many observers talking about a series of “color” revolutions that began with the change of power in Serbia and continued in Georgia and in Ukraine, try to find analogies between them and identify those states in which a repetition of “color” revolutions is possible, and the term “orange revolution” itself is such a common noun, often with a negative or positive emotional connotation (depending on the attitude of the speaker to the events described) , to denote the process of changing the leadership of a particular country in the process of peaceful mass uprisings. For their part, the authorities of the countries that were named as potential targets for the application of “revolutionary experience” took certain countermeasures to prevent this.

In addition to the above-mentioned color revolutions, revolutions in Kyrgyzstan received wide publicity: the Tulip Revolution of 2005 and the Second Melon Revolution of 2010.

In February - March 2005, the next parliamentary elections were held in Kyrgyzstan, which were recognized as unfair by international observers, which led to popular discontent, a sharp aggravation of the situation in the country and the overthrow of the existing regime. President of Kyrgyzstan Askar Akaev, having failed to stop attempts to usurp power, left the country along with his entire family and received temporary asylum in Russia, where he still lives. Power passed into the hands of a heterogeneous opposition. Immediately after this, internal disagreements and conflicts began among the winners. After some time, Askar Akaev, as a result of negotiations with representatives of the opposition, signed a statement about his resignation from the presidential post. As a result of early elections, one of the opposition leaders, Kurmanbek Bakiev, was elected president. This, however, did not lead to the normalization of life in the country, and among opposition figures (primarily Kurmanbek Bakiyev and Felix Kulov) the struggle for power continued, or rather for leadership in tandem, in which K. Bakiyev successfully won.

The events that began in April 2010 on the territory of Kyrgyzstan became an example of one of the most paradoxical coups d'etat in the post-Soviet space. In just three months, not only the current president and government were overthrown and new ones were formed, but also a referendum was held on amendments to the country’s constitution, the results of which were recognized by the entire international community, including the Russian Federation. The media qualified the events as a “yellow” revolution, however, despite the obviously violent nature of the opposition’s rise to power, the media did not place such emphasis on this as in the case of the “velvet” revolution in Georgia or the “orange” revolution in Ukraine.

On November 21, Ukraine celebrates the anniversary of Euromaidan: a year ago, a protest began in Kyiv that changed the entire country. Almost on the same day in 2004, the Orange Revolution began. Journalists and experts will talk about the similarities and differences between the two Maidans.

Exactly a year ago, on the night of November 21-22, a socio-political process called “Euromaidan” began in Ukraine, which later turned into mass demonstrations, the seizure of power in the regions, the overthrow of the country’s leadership in the person of President Viktor Yanukovych and his associates, the departure of Crimea into Russia and the autonomy of Donbass. It is noteworthy that the beginning of Euromaidan coincided with the beginning of the Orange Revolution almost to the day. Are there any differences in the two revolutions that occurred almost 10 years apart? Has the country's socio-political background changed over the decade? Did the top officials of the Orange Revolution support Euromaidan?

First, let’s look at the similarities between two Maidans ten years apart.

50% "for", 50% "against"

In 2004, the Orange Revolution only confirmed the differences existing in Ukraine between its two halves - the West and the East. The South-East, traditionally drawn to Russia, expressed support for the country’s current course and the nominally pro-Russian presidential candidate of Ukraine, Viktor Yanukovych, who was called upon to replace Leonid Kuchma as head of state, leaving after his second presidential term. Western Ukraine almost completely (with the partial exception of Transcarpathia, which is a kind of outpost of Rusyns next to Western Ukrainians) expressed support for the opposition candidate Viktor Yushchenko. Of course, their orange “Maidans” also appeared in Eastern Ukrainian cities-opponents - for example, in the “first capital” Kharkov, where Yanukovych delegated his representatives - which cannot be said about cities in Western Ukraine, where Viktor Yanukovych’s supporters were clearly afraid to go.

Ten years later, the trend towards dividing the country into West and East has only intensified. Of course, there were those dissatisfied with both the Yanukovych government and the “Euromaidan” in both parts of the country, however, which is typical, the backbone of the protesters in the center of Kyiv in both cases were residents of Western Ukraine. Experts explain this by saying that most of Ukrainian production is concentrated in the southeast of the country, and workers who support Maidan (even if there were some in this region) simply did not risk their jobs.

The main location is the center, the capital, Kiev V

As we remember from the lessons of history, victory in a revolution is guaranteed by mass participation. However, in the case of Ukraine, this principle did not work from the point of view of territoriality: both Maidans took place in Kyiv with small outbreaks in the regions. To be fair, it should be noted that in 2014, the militant actions of regional protesters became larger, more frequent and more targeted: here and there, pockets of riots and seizures of certain administrative buildings broke out.

True, in 2014, all the main events took place not on the Maidan itself, but not far from it - first, in December 2013, on Bankova Street (near the walls of the Presidential Administration of Ukraine, where the protesters tried to break through), and then, in January- February 2014, on the very nearby Grushevsky Street. Peaceful protesters and a tent city remained on Maidan.

"Of course, Maidan 2014 is a direct continuation of Maidan 2004 - primarily due to three main factors. The first - both Maidans were organized with the help of part of the current government, the second - with the support of part of the ruling oligarchs to solve their economic and political problems, the third - using the social protest of the population and old nationalist clichés, which, when applied to Ukraine, have long been linked to the interests of Western expansion in Eurasia."

Against Yanukovych and for Europe

Paradoxically, the main goals of the two Maidans have not changed even after 10 years, and even the first persons of the two revolutions have not changed. Firstly, in 2004, supporters of the Orange Revolution showed with all their might that they - and with them the whole of Ukraine - were opposed to maintaining the previous course of the Ukrainian government in the person of Leonid Kuchma’s protege, Viktor Yanukovych. At that time, Yanukovych was only the prime minister. He was opposed by the ex-prime minister and the main opposition politician at that time, Viktor Yushchenko. Characteristic of Maidan 2004 is the concentration of the entire protest wave around one political figure - that’s what Yushchenko became, gathering around himself not only his usual supporters, but also prominent politicians: Yulia Tymoshenko, Alexander Moroz, Petro Poroshenko and a number of Ukrainian nationalists. A number of European political figures did not stand aside from supporting Yushchenko - for example, ex-President of Poland Lech Walesa, President of Georgia Mikheil Saakashvili, almost the entire European Union and the United States. Secondly, the formulation “against cooperation with Russia, for cooperation with Europe” was popular in 2004, but ten years later this factor became almost the key factor for the masses.

Viktor Yanukovych approached the “Euromaidan” already in the status of the country’s president, and mass protests in Kyiv began just after the postponement of the signing of the association agreement with the European Union. However, this time the nature of the actions began to take on the features of violence used by both sides. First, on one night at the end of November, the Ukrainian police dispersed the “Euromaidan” in a fairly harsh manner, and a few days later the radicals came to Bankovaya. Interestingly, many experts do not rule out the possibility that the leaders of the country and the city were framed by unknown persons who gave the order to disperse the Euromaidan supporters. As experts emphasize, a week after the start of the protests, the enthusiasm of the protesters fell, only a few hundred protesters remained on the Maidan, and hitherto unknown persons “at the top of law enforcement” needed to carry out a harsh provocation to continue the mass protests.

It is interesting that if the Orange Revolution had a fairly clear set of symbols for recognizing “friend or foe” (orange for Viktor Yushchenko, blue for Viktor Yanukovych), then “Euromaidan” refused to divide into colors - unless you consider red and black as such the banner of Ukrainian nationalists and the black and orange St. George ribbons of the militia. But in 2014, a lot of EU flags appeared in the crowds in Kyiv.

Vasily Koltashov, head of the Center for Economic Research at the Institute of Globalization and Social Movements (IGSO):

“The economic differences between the Maidans are colossal, as are their consequences, which are different. But there is no gradual development of the process, but a “rollback” of the system to Donetsk capital and the revenge of its enemies in completely different conditions.”

Support and conscience of the revolution - oligarchs, intellectuals, students

It is noteworthy that, despite the declared desire for changes in Ukraine and the distribution of promises to overthrow the power of the oligarchs, three months after the overthrow of the power of Viktor Yanukovych, one of the main Ukrainian billionaires, Petro Poroshenko, became president. As in the case of Maidan 2004, one of the oligarchic clans began to fight for power, wanting to have leverage - if not directly in their own hands, then with the help of “fed” politicians and the media. Another key person in the “shadow cabinet”, Igor Kolomoisky, also supported the overthrow of the government.

Traditionally, Maidan 2014 did not remain without the support of the Ukrainian intelligentsia. Famous musicians Ruslana Lyzhichko, Kamaliya, “Okean Elzy”, Zlata Ognevich, Katya Buzhinskaya, Anastasia Prikhodko, Alexander Ponomarev, “Druha Rika” and many others performed on the Maidan stage and in its support. The Euromaidan activists were also supported by representatives of the literary community - Yuri Andrukhovich, Sergei Zhadan, Irena Karpa, Maria Matios, Vasil Shklyar, Oksana Zabuzhko, Taras Prokhasko, Yuri Vinnichuk.

The core of the “powerful” development of events in the center of Kyiv and the regions were young people - mainly students. As a rule, the age of radicals varied from 18 years to 25-30 years: these are precisely those who, during childhood, adolescence and youth, experienced the Orange Revolution, and also absorbed all the features of teaching Ukrainian history.

Modest Kolerov, I. O. Editor-in-Chief of the REGNUM news agency:

“The political, economic and social background of the Euromaidan is, of course, not identical, but the general situation that caused the first Maidan is identical, and which was never resolved, ushering in a very long period of unrest and collapse in Ukraine, which is now still very far away from completion, the country is culturally fragmented, economically dismembered in the territory of oligarchic influence, but deprived of traditional formats for the representation of various interests, the simplest of which is federalization. Now federalization is in full swing, which, however, still must be maintained within an integral state, the collapse of which began WITHOUT. and OUTSIDE of federalization. Another common background for events is the general economic backwardness of the oligarchic economy of Ukraine, as is known, the most energy-intensive economy in Europe. It will face one after another of shocking economic changes, even if they are called reforms and not a disaster.”

Lightning strikes twice in the same place

The similarity between the start date of the Orange Revolution in 2004 and the Euromaidan in 2013 is quite mystical. The official beginning of the Orange Revolution is considered to be November 22, 2004, when masses of people began to flock to the Maidan. “Euromaidan” began its action on the night of November 21-22, 2013, when about a thousand residents of Kyiv took to the Maidan to protest against the decision of the Ukrainian authorities to suspend the implementation of the association agreement with the European Union.

At the same time, the initial demand of the Euromaidan protesters was the signing of an association agreement with the EU, which, after the dispersal of demonstrators on November 30, grew into mass demonstrations demanding the resignation of the authorities. The supporters of the Orange Revolution had one goal - to invalidate the official voting results in the second round of the presidential elections in Ukraine and to hold the vote again, which in itself implied that their leader, Viktor Yushchenko, and not Viktor Yanukovych, should become president.

“These two Maidans are very different from each other in the general mood of their participants. The first Maidan was predominantly nationalist in its ideas: people were convinced that all the country’s problems are in one way or another connected with the continued dependence on Russia and with the domination of the oligarchs, and in general - with the fact that Ukrainians have still not been able to build a “normal European society.” Such a society is imagined as independent from Moscow and from its own oligarchs. We are not talking here about the goals of those who actually organized all this - everything is more complicated there, but in the eyes. for the participants themselves, it was a speech for the establishment of national statehood, for its independence, “Euromaidan” was completely different: it was attended mainly by people disappointed in the strength of their state, in the ability of Ukraine to solve its own problems, which they had been shouting about from the stands for nine years. ago. It was the Maidan not for the establishment of national statehood, but on the contrary - for its displacement under external control. The Ukrainians wanted clean and ideal European officials to stand over their corrupt officials, so that the European Union would direct the development of their country. in the right direction,” exercised control and, of course, protected from the influence of Russia, with which all the negative aspects of the current system are associated. This was the Maidan of those who were disappointed in their country and wanted to give it under external control. He asserted not so much a Ukrainian national identity, but a European, civilizational one. No longer counting on their own national strength, Ukrainians relied on the West, to which they could sell their Russophobia well. Ukrainian patriotism has given way to geopolitical dreams."

Now let’s touch on the differences between the two Ukrainian revolutions

Goodbye Crimea! Goodbye, Donbass!

The violent nature of Maidan 2014 was partly the reason why the southeastern regions decided to seriously address the issue of secession from Ukraine. The participants in the riots on Bankova and Grushevsky are to blame for this, who not only positioned themselves as members of the ultra-nationalist “Right Sector”, but also did not shy away from openly demonstrating their rather unambiguous symbols - just look at the large portrait of UPA leader Stepan Bandera above the entrance to the building of the captured Kyiv City State Administration. The corresponding signals, coupled with the extremely anti-Russian rhetoric of the new Ukrainian authorities, gave the residents of the South-East a very clear signal: no one will listen to you, now we will live by our rules.

Maidan 2004 still did not offer such radicalism. This was partly due to the absence of violence and the peaceful nature of the revolution declared by the “orange”, partly due to the electoral process and the demand for re-elections, and not to a more radical condition - a change of power. Now it’s hard to believe, but in 2004, supporters of Viktor Yushchenko actively campaigned even in the Crimea - however, the “orange” leader did not gain much success among the Crimeans.

The result of the coup in Kyiv in 2014 was an equally harsh slap in the face of Crimea in the form of a referendum - of course, not without the help of the “little green men” who ensured the security of the region, and whose presence during the “Russian Spring” was recognized by Russian President Vladimir Putin. It is noteworthy that at the very beginning of the protests in Crimea for joining Russia, supporters of the Right Sector, being euphoric after the overthrow of the government in Kyiv, intended to send a so-called “friendship train” to the territory of the peninsula, completely transparently hinting at the suppression of any actions, associated with separation from Ukraine. They abandoned their plans only after the appearance of the so-called “polite people” who took control of a number of Crimean objects for the period of the referendum, and the very intention of Ukrainian nationalists to suppress the rallies only tilted people even more towards Russia. In general, Crimeans have repeatedly said that if Crimea had not become part of Russia in March, they would have faced the fate of Odessa residents on May 2.

Approximately the same can be said about Donbass, however, the process of secession of this region did not go as smoothly and bloodlessly as in the southern part of the country. Having barely recovered from Crimea, the Kyiv authorities quickly got their bearings and sent their army to suppress the Donbass uprising, which, to the surprise of the new leaders of Ukraine, was unable to cope with the small groups of militias. A few months later, the army was forced to capitulate, leaving behind destroyed cities and thousands of casualties.

Prohibit, mute, close

Almost immediately after coming to power in February 2014, the Ukrainian opposition began the total political destruction of its opponents. Over the course of several months, the Party of Regions and the Communist Party, which were once in the pro-government coalition, were destroyed in parliament, Euromaidan activists carried out the so-called “garbage lustration”, attacking officials on the streets and throwing them into a garbage container, and the real government began to implement a very real lustration, dismissing from government agencies entire groups of people who were in one way or another connected with the previous leadership or with work in structures during the Soviet period.

Such radical changes were not even thought of in 2004: both political flanks were equally strong in parliament, the communists were calmly in parliament along with the socialists, and the factor of violence on the streets against deputies was excluded.

What is characteristic is that during the period of the Orange Revolution there was more freedom of speech on the issue of freedom of speech: television channels expressed different points of view, and some of them were divided during the New Year celebrations: one part showed congratulations from the then current President Leonid Kuchma, while the second broadcast New Year’s greetings Viktor Yushchenko from Maidan. It is almost impossible to imagine today that any Ukrainian central television channel would do something similar.

Oleg Nemensky, researcher at the Institute of Slavic Studies of the Russian Academy of Sciences, employee at the Center for Ukrainian and Belarusian Studies at Moscow State University, senior researcher at the Russian Institute for Strategic Studies:

“Of course, Maidan 2014 is a direct continuation of Maidan 2004, because the main slogans are still the same, only the idea of the means of their implementation changes. Russia still plays the role of the “main culprit” in the Ukrainians’ perception of their troubles, and there are still hope for a quick solution to all problems through social consolidation. Ukrainian nationalism was formed in the late 19th - first half of the 20th century, during the era of the spread of far-right ideas in Europe, which found their greatest expression in fascism and Nazism. Like these ideologies, Ukrainians are characterized by a belief in miracles. the strength of the unity of the nation, in the fact that the power of the national spirit can radically transform reality and provide a new quality of life. Society brings itself to nationalistic psychosis, and then expects to see a new reality, gradually calming down and coming to consciousness, it is disappointed and temporarily lost, and is even ready to tolerate the power of those against whom they recently rebelled. Ukrainian self-awareness requires an uprising, a rebellion."

Economics and politics: it was unimportant, it became bad

Along with the 2014 revolution, a difficult economic situation also came to Ukraine. The new Ukrainian authorities blamed exclusively Russia and the militias for all their troubles, however, as experts note, the authorities had considerable funds for the construction of a “wall” on the border with Russia, arming the army and waging war, and much more. But ordinary Ukrainians could not contain their surprise when they missed impressive amounts in salary bonuses and pensions, and when they looked at their utility bills. The crisis has also affected other areas of life of Ukrainians: for example, in Kyiv they announced an increase in tariffs for public transport. At the same time, the Kyiv authorities are particularly diligent in ensuring that restrictions on trade with Russia for some enterprises are not violated.

It is noteworthy that instability in Ukraine began after Viktor Yushchenko came to power, but it was smoothed over by the inextricability of economic ties with Russia and, in fact, by the preservation of old economic systems, despite the declared course of European integration. The period of Viktor Yushchenko is strongly associated among Ukrainians with the political lack of will of the authorities and reshuffles in the government.

“The political background is gradually radicalizing, and the lack of real success in development and in promoting imaginary Europeanization leads to despair, from which the only way out is rebellion. People who are ready to take up arms and solve problems “quickly” come to the fore. And there are always many of them, especially among young people. Given the catastrophic development of the socio-economic situation, Ukrainians are still maintaining good spirits, as they are supported by faith in the unity of the nation and quick decisive actions, as well as the hope of gratitude from the West for such pronounced pro-Western sentiments.

The first Maidan took place in the country that was the leader in economic growth in the post-Soviet space, which had excellent chances for development and a good level of political consolidation - the confrontation between East and West was still talked about as a temporary phenomenon, greatly underestimating the prospects for the upcoming split of the country. The second Maidan took place under the conditions of the consequences of the first: a collapsed economy, an impoverished country, a divided nation and an ever-growing level of social tension. Unfortunately, it is difficult to doubt that the consequences of Euromaidan will be even more terrible. We already see some of them: the loss of Crimea and the civil war in the East were clearly not among the desired results. But we must understand that this is just the beginning, these are the earliest consequences of what happened. Worse, the country is confidently moving towards a new Maidan, towards a military coup, but it no longer has the resources to survive new shocks.”

Enemy language

It is possible that a rehearsal for Maidan 2014 was the rallies outside the Verkhovna Rada, directed against the adoption of the law on regional languages. This law itself implied the introduction to the level of regional status of the language spoken in any region by at least 10% of the population. With the help of social networks, Ukrainian nationalists, who once again saw the “hand of Moscow” in this law, convened a large rally, and were supported by many politicians and creative intelligentsia. The law was eventually passed, but it was accompanied by huge scandals and protests. By the way, it was this law that the Ukrainian opposition abolished first of all, as soon as it came to power.

In 2014, Ukrainian TV channels demonstrate amazing unanimity: almost every news release in one way or another features the topic of Russia, its troops, Vladimir Putin personally, the Russian economy and much more. Unfortunately, the majority of Ukrainian media hush up the emerging rallies in large Ukrainian cities (for example, a protest rally near the National Bank building in Kyiv or a rally of Kiev residents dissatisfied with housing and communal services), and all popular discontent is explained by nothing less than a Russian propaganda tool.

Anti-Russian rhetoric was also present among supporters of Viktor Yushchenko, and after his victory in the elections, the east of the country began to be forcibly Ukrainized - decrees were issued requiring broadcasting on TV and radio exclusively in the Ukrainian language, and all TV channels and cinemas showing Russian films were required to provide subtitles in Ukrainian. However, the country’s authorities then did not openly oppose Russia, imposing anti-Russian rhetoric on the entire people - as happened in 2014.

War and Peace

The situation in both 2004 and 2014 was fueled by the media controlled by the oligarchs: on television and in newspapers they called for “not allowing bandits to power,” meaning supporters of Yanukovych and the “Donbass people.” Various layers of society also carried out their negative deeds: consider the chant of Dynamo Kyiv fans entitled “Thank you to the residents of Donbass,” in which the President of Ukraine Viktor Yanukovych was called an obscene word.

It is interesting that in 2004, a bloody confrontation both between protesters and the police, and between supporters of the opposing camps, was avoided - which cannot be said about the Maidan 2014, when hundreds of people died in Kyiv, and the constantly morally oppressed South-East rebelled and separated. The result of the confrontation between the West and the East, which has existed since the collapse of the USSR, was the withdrawal of Crimea to Russia and the autonomy of Donbass, which Kyiv seems to be ready to recognize.

“The first Maidan relied entirely on leadership figures, counting on the good will of Ukrainian patriotic politicians. “Euromaidan” had no real leaders at all. It didn’t need them, because the main hopes now rest not on their politicians, not on the “leaders of the nation” ", but to foreign system officials from the EU and the USA. They did not have a specific person, and Nuland clearly did not lay claim to such a role. The leaders of the old Maidan were not only annoying as not living up to the hopes placed on them, but they were simply not needed. If Tymoshenko had not appeared on the Maidan at all, she would probably have collected approximately the same percentage of support from her nuclear electorate in the autumn elections.

Poroshenko, who was elected president, although he significantly invested in the promotion and organization of Euromaidan, was not considered by anyone there as its leader. And this is a very sad fact for Ukraine: after the next “revolution” it was unable to find a leader of the nation; it was led by a man whose strengths lie mainly in his weakness - the lack of his own team, mass support and loyal followers. He is just a convenient compromise figure, and his attempt to become a strong president was completely destroyed by parliamentary elections. Ukrainians don’t need their leaders now; they no longer believe in them. They need obedient guides of the Western will, a kind of colonial administration. The trouble with Ukraine is that the West doesn’t really need such a colony either. The conflict with Russia is, by and large, the only thing that attracts attention to it.".

One can only guess what the fate of Ukraine will be in the future. According to experts, Ukraine is waiting for “Maidan-3”, and if you observe the progressive scale of violence and crisis of the first two Ukrainian revolutions, it is possible that a third such shock could be fatal for this country.

nikolayzarin14 https://tehnoshop.ua/image/catalog/Logo.png Choosing household appliances for the home is a responsible undertaking, since we require uninterrupted service from devices for a long time, while striving to make a purchase at the most reasonable price. This is the optimal combination of price and quality that is offered by the Technoshop online store in Kyiv. In our online catalog you will find new household appliances and electronics for every Kyiv apartment and private house. The wide range of the Technoshop online store includes all kinds of accessories for household appliances and cooktops, wine coolers and water heaters, microwave ovens and hoods, stoves and ovens, freezers and chests, dishwashers and washing machines, refrigerators and much more. The range of small appliances for kitchen chores is just as diverse, from convection ovens to electric kettles. The digital equipment section has everything you need for you to enjoy modern picture and sound quality in your home. Products from leading brands are presented, and thanks to direct cooperation with manufacturers and official distributors in Ukraine, our customers do not overpay - we have reasonable, affordable prices. The online store "Technoshop" is waiting for you! Refrigerator Samsung RB34N5420WW/UA https://tehnoshop.ua/275/285/48533.html http://dl4.joxi.net/drive/2019/05/20/0011/3689/786025/25/06a8ad3eaa.jpg

Ferel Hello everyone. I think each of us likes to listen to good and high-quality music? What genre do you prefer? Do you have any favorite performers?

Barbarossia What kind of kitchen scales are not available in stores today? The most unusual shapes and purposes, colors, coatings and manufacturers. Making the right choice can often be very difficult. When planning to buy dishes, we, as a rule, first of all proceed from our own needs, but it often happens that, once in the store, we buy far from the best that the manufacturers offer us. We are sure that at http://moyakuhnya.com.ua/prinadlezhnosti-dlya-kukhni/, you will definitely find something that will fully satisfy your needs.

Barbarossia Berghoff knives are sharp and reliable equipment designed to work with various types of products. There are universal, chef's, and special products, each of which has its own purpose. An important selection criterion is technical characteristics and personal preferences. But why bother yourself with a difficult choice when in the store http://moyakuhnya.com.ua/kukhonnye-nozhi-i-nabory/ you can buy a set of kitchen knives with a beautiful stand included?