It is difficult to be a symbol

Russia has no meaningful reasons to judge the hope of Savchenko, but logic and common sense are not important for political affairs

Nadezhda Savchenko in the courtroom, Rostov Region, Donetsk, February 3, 2016

In the center of all the discussions of the case of Nadezhda Savchenko, Nadezhda Savchenko herself stands up, and this is understandable: an unbending woman-officer behind bars is a too bright image so as not to pay attention to him. She is a hero, she is a villain, she behaves bravely, she behaves defiantly, she is a martyr for a just cause, she is a military criminal, she risks her life, she manipulates public opinion - as often happens with the loud processes of recent years, the opinions are extremely polar, and all of them concern the moral appearance of the defendant: the feeling that the end of the court was going on and the outcome of the case and the outcome of the case and the outcome whether they recognize the accused good or bad.

Let's try to forget about the personal qualities of Savchenko for a variety. About the details of her biography. On the details (usually inaccurate) of her participation in military operations. And even about the legal intricacies of the criminal case - the lawyer Ilya Novikov writes about this on Facebook, the arguments of the prosecution are also not difficult to find. Even before the moral assessment of the current behavior of Savchenko, before clarifying the details of her past actions, before determining the validity of a particular sentence, I would like to understand: how is this court in general?

Let's try to approach this story from the standpoint of naive common sense. As a result of the artillery, Russian journalists were killed in the ATO zone - from any point of view, this is a terrible tragedy, and the moral assessment of whether the journalist was working for the VGTRK, especially illuminating the event in the Donbass, is also not related to the essence of the matter; Journalists died in the war - this is a tragedy, a point. The next question: is this a war in which Russia takes part as one of the warring parties - formally, informally, hybrid, openly, secretly? If not, after all, it is the official position (our soldiers, as we have repeatedly heard from the President of the Russian Federation, were not in the Donbass) - then this military conflict in the territory of another state and the Russian law enforcement system can make claims only to their fellow citizens, who sent journalists to someone else's war without taking care of their security: at least not supplying them with accreditation in the ATO zone.

Even before determining the validity of a particular sentence, I would like to understand: how is this court in general?

If this is a war in which Russia takes part in one form or another, then Savchenko should be recognized as a prisoner of war, one of many, captured in the conflict zone and in the hands of law enforcement officers of one degree or another of hybridity. Well, this is also a possible option - but in this case, it is necessary to admit that Russia has one or another degree of participation (and one or another interest) in this conflict, and then come from Savchenko, depending on whether Russia considers this conflict to be completed (which the Minsk agreements recorded) or it still lasts: in the first case, Savchenko is subject to exchange for other prisoners of prison The second should be received with her in accordance with the Convention on Prisoner of War Protection - in any case, the adjustment of artillery fire on the enemy territory, where foreign journalists accidentally find themselves, does not belong to the number of military or criminal offenses and Russian criminal proceedings have nothing to do with it.

Explain that in this logical chain is wrong.

However, I myself can explain this: in high -profile political affairs, the logical chains do not interest anyone. Savchenko needs to be condemned-not for the deed and not even in accordance with the composition of the prosecution, but for the fact that she hates Russia, and we hit her in her way, her hand would not flinch, and someone else saw her tortured someone. Savchenko needs to be justified - for the fact that it is persistent, and does not give up, and knows how to hold hunger strikes, and shows the court the middle finger. And in one and in another position, Savchenko is not just a person with his life circumstances that brought her to the bench of the defendants, this is a symbol, behind which there is something more: we judge Ukraine because she does not love us and seeks to live separately, or justify Ukraine for being bending her, and she does not bend.

And any further fate of Savchenko, no matter what the court decided on March 21, will also be a symbol, we want it or not: I want to hope that it is still a symbol of the end of a meaningless war, and not a symbol of senseless cruelty.

Photo: Vasily Deryugin/Kommersant