About violence: analysis of three examples from modern Ukrainian life

Ukraine passes through fierce tests in its modern history, which cause hot disputes. Of course, the consequences of misinformation contribute to the mutual misunderstanding of opponents. Anyone who sympathizes with the anticriminal character of the Ukrainian revolution will not find mutual understanding with the victim of propaganda, who believed that fascists and looters were standing on the Maidan. But there are other reasons. I want to discuss one important issue, polarizing those who argue about the Maidan. I will formulate it as an ethical task, okay?

Scenario 1. Citizens N, O, P and R, to achieve some goals, united in a group, armed with cold or firearms and used force against other persons.

Scenario 2. The state structure S to achieve some goals organized a group of civilians, armed them with cold or firearms and supported the use of power against other persons.

Question. Are there situations when it is acceptable to use violence corresponding to the script 1? Script 2? Are these situations symmetric from an ethical point of view?

During the discussion of this task, I faced a variety of answers, which can be reduced to three groups.

Answer No. 1. No, never. No, never. The situations are symmetrical. The goal does not justify the means, and the use of violence is never perplexed.

Answer No. 2. No, never. Yes, sometimes. The situations are asymmetric. The state has a monopoly on the use of violence, and outside the will of the state, citizens do not have such a right. But if for the state (which represents all citizens) or its structures it is necessary to use violence, it should be applied in the form that allows you to more effectively solve the task.

Answer No. 3. Yes, sometimes. No, never. The situations are asymmetric. If the goals of citizens are worthy and cannot be achieved by other means, violence from citizens may be justified. The state is granted by citizens the right to violence; So that the state does not usurp it, this right is limited by rigid procedures. There is a usurpation of power.

What is your response option? Mine is the third. By the way, those countries that live in accordance with it have achieved the greatest success in both living standards and in the level of civilian freedoms.

Is it possible to prove that answer No. 3 is correct? In my coordinate system - yes. Whether this proof will work in your system - I do not know.

To substantiate why the third answer is correct, and not the first, easier on examples. If citizens are organized to repulse terrorists who seek to destroy hostages, their actions deserve all approval.

If they confront the state that usurped power, their actions correspond to the right of citizens to an uprising - in the event that it was impossible to stop usurpation by other means.

If they achieve justice in relation to criminal power in Vidyevka and it cannot be done otherwise - they are right.

If they confront the state that ignores a peaceful protest for two months and responded to the demands of half of the country's citizens only to sadist, extra -and -hemicity use of force - they are right.

Answer No. 2 corresponds to the common principle “the boss is always right”. If the state is departing from the procedures that limit the use of violence, it means that it solves its tasks, and does not protect the interests of citizens. This ends with a complete loss of legitimacy for the state and the powerless state of its citizens.

Of the examples I have given, the most relevant is the one that belongs to the Maidan. Participants in the anti -Criminal revolution really applied force. As far as I understand, the personnel of this use of power are well known to the Russian viewer who is interested in politics (as well as the viewer of the East Ukrainian sitting on the needle of the Russian propaganda machine).

Could they do without violence and be heard? No, and this clearly showed the development of events. Was it always minimally necessary? Probably not. The use of violence has its logic. When the escalation of the conflict began to stop it, we must have superhuman restraint. Fortunately, my fellow citizens often showed this quality. And sometimes, of course, it did not work ...

But, you see, discussing these cases, you need to go into the details, weighing whether the parties could really act more optimally.

Now you will understand my attitude to a common argument against the Maidan: they would try to organize something like this in Germany or America, they would be arrested right away. Certainly. And you know why? Both in Germany and America, politicians simply cannot ignore peaceful protest promotions supported by half the population. And in order to punish power structures for the excessive use of force, there is no need to build barricades there, it is enough to go to court there. And in such conditions when violence becomes excessive to achieve quite fair goals, its suppression will be justified.

And now I propose to consider the second example - one simple case from the Kharkov life. Compared to the events in Kyiv, he will seem to be a trifle. It was February 18, on the day when special forces of the Ukrainian state burned (or at least did not take measures for salvation) the Palace of Trade Unions, where the wounded were burned alive. On the same day, it became known that the Ministry of Internal Affairs uses internal troops as a cover for legitimate and illegal special forces, which led to victims among the Vaeshniks.

On social networks, the call to block the departure from the Kharkov Academy of the Internal Troops of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Ukraine, the cadets of which received an order to go to Kyiv. In addition to my other friends, two girls with whom I work went there, each kilogram of 45-50 live weight. I was going to finish my affairs at the university and go to the academy to look after them and drag them out if the situation becomes dangerous.

I did not have time to leave. One of them returned, the second seemed to also plan to soon leave the rally. Information appeared on the Web that the cadets would not go anywhere. I calmed down somewhat and went home with my wife (to give birth in a month).

He arrived and found out that he had calmed down prematurely. The protesters stood under the academy and chanted "Stay at home!" "Golden Eagle" pushed them to the other side of the street. And then - do not believe, watch the video - the following happened. On the opposite side of the street, protesters stood. Behind the police, several dozen civilians appeared in yellow-green vests and sticks. They removed the items that the protesters brought to the gates of the Academy, approached a number of police officers, went through their ranks ... and began to beat with sticks of the rally participants. The police stood and watched ... When the protesters were dispersed, the people in the vests were quietly gathered and removed asleep.

What are these people in vests? The Kharkov governor explained . These are “angels” from the public organization “Ukrainian Front”, created on its initiative. A number of specific tasks in the Kharkov region are solved by the hands of such “social activists”, and it began for a long time. (If interesting, look at my article of 2010. Then I wrote about “People in Black” or “Municipal Guard”.)

This is that many of my colleagues saw with their own eyes. After that, I believe in reports from Kyiv about how the bandits organized by the police are smashing the city and even shooting citizens.

Do you think the Kharkov governor is preserved by the legitimacy after these events?

Now I propose to consider one aspect of Kyiv events. I will quote the statement of the Kharkov human rights group.

“On February 20, 2014, in the center of Kyiv there was actually a terrorist surgery of snipers using a firearm, specially designed to defeat targets at a large distance, from pre -prepared fire points, dozens of naked people killed on Independence Maidan. The purpose of snipers was precisely the murder of people
The events of this terrible crime for several hours were covered live on many television channels, but none of the subjects authorized to combat terrorism took measures for the immediate cessation of a terrorist operation against citizens of Ukraine.
Therefore, we are sure that this crime could be committed only by a special forces of one of the special security services. ”

According to the confidence of confidence, these snipers also shot at law enforcement officers. Allegedly, when one of the special forces calculated the positions of snipers, he was banned (“from the very top”) to touch them. The Maidanists are sure that snipers are business travelers from Russia. Sources in the police seem to claim that these are their own, “native” special services. Dear Russian readers, and you are not interested in knowing who they really are? Some information is already appearing .

By the way, you are wondering how the part of the Russian public reacted? Having watched the news about Kyiv, flooded by order of Yanukovych with blood, immigrants from Ukraine, who became Russian masters of culture, Lanovs with Kobzons, called on Yanukovych to use force. Such a culture ...

Yes, there is also a version that the Maidanites themselves organized snipers. As far as I understand, the inhabitants of Russia are replaced by this particular version. As you understood, to break it, there is enough argument that the human rights activists brought. Now, keep in mind that the snipers were on the most protected government buildings. That they used professional weapons. And finally, the last argument. Fragments of the text of an unknown author walking on Facebook.

“The provocateurs changed into the form of“ Golden Eagle ”and firing protesters, NTV reports.
The provocateurs changed into the shape of the traffic police and take bribes.
The provocateurs changed into the form of the police and raped the girl in Vradievka.

The provocateur changed into the form of the president and rules Ukraine ... "

Of course, the fracture of the situation was related to the work of snipers. By all canons, people had to scatter. And they walked and went to where they could be killed. Doctors were especially dangerous: snipers shot at red crosses. New volunteers dressed the crosses and went to pull out the wounded ...

At that time, Yanukovych talked with the ministers of the foreign affairs of the three European powers, not counting the time when he left to call Putin, and the ambassadors patiently waited for his return. The Rada (the Supreme Council), the opposition forces and part of the deputies of the Party of Regions ("Party of the Communist Party") took responsibility for leaving the bloodshed. The only parliamentary force that did not give a single voice for the ceasefire is the Communists. The presidential administration and after these decisions tried to move special forces and threaten the use of force.

Tell me, did the president lose its legitimacy, or not?

I am writing this column on Saturday, the 22nd. The Kharkov Governor is gathering a congress of deputies of the southeast of Ukraine and Crimea. Allegedly, more or less veiled decisions on the separation of part of Ukraine are expected. For the inhabitants of this part of the country, this is a path to nowhere. What to do?

I am finishing my work and go to the Kharkov Maidan ...

Photo by ITAR-TASS/ Mikhail Postuev