Probably, there is no need to retell this matter. There is hardly anyone who would be out of touch. But it is still necessary to focus on some details.
- OK. Who will be Jeanne d'Arc? (a question after discussion of how someone inside the parliament will fill up the hall with grenades)
- Jeanne d'Arc herself.
- What's the point then?
- A beautiful fire, - Ruban.
- Listen, heroes do not die, heroes should be dead. If did not die there, OK then, - Savchenko
- Do you see yourself in this role?
- Then what is all this mayhem for?
- Who else?
- All right, who's next?
- Don't be silly.
- I don't care.
- There is no duplication here. She just has such a dream… - Ruban
This dialogue is a fragment of an operational video that the Prosecutor General's Office showed to the deputies before voting for the removal of parliamentary immunity from Savchenko. In Lutsenko's place, I would not show this moment. It shows the intention and readiness of Savchenko to die in order to liberate her country from those who, in her opinion, seized power on the blood of the Maidan and use it NOT for the people's benefit.
On the other hand, it is possible that in the understanding of our authorities, this fragment should prove the deputies and society that Savchenko is really not right upstairs, as they are gradually trying to put it into our heads. For them, the desire of a person to die for the sake of an idea, self-sacrifice for the sake of the people is a manifest deviation. And here, against the backdrop of their moral ugliness, Savchenko really looks like Jeanne d'Arc. But…
Milorad Pavić said: "Your intentions please the Lord, but not your deeds". But the human court evaluates not intentions, but only deeds and facts. And the facts, in all the loftiness of intentions, are such that a famous proverb comes to mind at once: the road to hell is paved with good intentions…
Shell the center of Kyiv, kill the deputies and government, behead the state during the war. And all this in league with the enemies of your country, with those who killed tens of thousands and left millions of your fellow citizens homeless!... It would seem that the conclusions should be unambiguous. But this is logic, and when did logic form the public opinion?
Moreover, 80% of what Savchenko says explaining the motives of her actions is true. No, not in the part of "surrealism", when she openly lies, claiming that she deliberately created a strained situation for camera, but in the part of the authorities' characteristics and of what this power is doing with the country.
That is why oddly enough, a significant part of the society is on her side. Despite all the horrors that she could bring, if she implemented her plans for shelling Kyiv and terrorist attacks in the government quarter! The explanation is simple: the horrors from our authorities, about which she says, are already a reality for the majority of Ukrainians, they already experience them every day. And those horrors, in planning of which Savchenko is accused – these are just words, theory, spectacular picture, no more. Therefore, people do not perceive them as a danger that threatens them personally. In Savchenko's plans, they see only the revenge on Poroshenko for his Maldives, Lipetsk and offshore; on Avakov for backpacks and "Berkut's" lawlessness; on Lutsenko for wedding, the Seychelles and political bitchiness of his wife; on the Kononenkas, Rosenblats and Yatsenyuks for their enrichment during the war and the impoverishment of the majority; on Turchynov for the surrendered Crimea and selective mobilization; revenge on them all for disappointment and the deceived expectations, gained through suffering and blood… And it does not matter how much this revenge is justified. Revenge is a product of hatred, and hatred, like love, is a feeling that cannot be explained or corrected logically. It can be only felt, sympathized and manipulated.
Therefore, Savchenko will not become a terrorist, but a heroine for a significant part of people. She accumulates the hatred of people for mercantile authorities and personifies determination in the struggle against these authorities. Decisiveness which many would like to have, but do not have it. So the popularity of Savchenko will be proportional to the unpopularity of authorities. Regardless of the real guilt or innocence. She will be based on these 80% of truth, and the 20% of lies that turn honey into tar will simply not be noticed. Again, because the feelings defy logic.
The authorities themselves created Savchenko. And not only by getting her out of captivity; not only by provoking this "conspiracy", but also by creating a real ground for motivating such a conspiracy, for the growth of radical sentiments among people ready to blow up this Rada and the entire government quarter to hell, whatever will happen next, the main thing is to punish the "profiteers".
The experiences of the Augean stables, which cannot be cleaned out, but can only be washed off with a shooting flow, have already matured in society, but the authorities, judging by their actions, do not understand this. Do not the behavior of Poroshenko and Avakov remind the behavior of Zakharchenko (MIA Minister) and Yanukovych in 2013, when they simply did not give a damn about the public opinion, law and people in general, even their entourage? In fact, the Maidan arose not because there was a threat to European integration, but because "they have fu***ing crossed the line". Is not "crossed the line" the main characteristic of the current government? But they still introduce their "Rotterdams", divide the economy, raise tariffs and steal, steal, steal... Because they live in a parallel universe and do not understand what is happening in reality and how they look in the eyes of the hungry ones...
But Savchenko herself lives in the same illusory world as the government. Only in the anti-world. Her desire for a feat for the sake of the people (Ruban said: "she has such a dream”) leveled the meaning of this feat. For her, it became more important than those for whom she is ready to commit it...
Did she really think that the people, whose murder she wanted to blame on the revolution, would accept her alliance with Zakharchenko and Putin? Even "for the sake of peace"? Did she expect that Kyiv would accept the emergence of Zakharchenkos and Tashkents in Ukrainian politics? Did she expect that the country of the Maidans would agree to live in a big "DNR" with Putin and bandits who replaced the "hustlers" in power?
Agreeing with them, taking their weapons to overthrow the Ukrainian authorities, she actually took the side of the enemy. You cannot use external forces to fight your authorities. Especially, if these forces are your country's enemies. Because then you become their puppet. This is the difference between the Maidan and the separatist rallies in Donetsk-Luhansk in 2014. Maidan, seizures of state establishments and counteraction to "Berkut" changed the situation in ITS country and for ITS country. The movement of "Putin, bring in troops" also seized state agencies and opposed the army, but in the interests of the NEIGHBOURING country. A country that has already seized part of Ukraine, that is, that fought with Ukraine. And now, Savchenko is fighting to bring Zakharchenko and Tashkent (i.e. Putin) here?! Is this not a betrayal?
The version about bringing the situation to the point of absurdity, about "surrealism", which was voiced by Savchenko, who supposedly knew that she was being recorded and said unreal things on purpose, is ridiculous. There is no logical conclusion in this line of behavior. That is, if she deliberately talked about such things, how, apart from arrest and imprisonment, she wanted to implement this strategy? Did she think that she would tell everyone that she had "joked" and everyone would believe that and forgive her? Then she should really be shown to a psychiatrist.
Her scenario of terrorist attacks is also not logical. Well, they bombed the Rada, killed Poroshanko, handed Turchynov over to the terrorists. But what next? Who will lead the country, give orders to the army and police, communicate with the West and Russia? Her sister Vira? But the same military, with whom Savchenko planned all this stuff, were against it. Ruban, who wants to repress people? And who would follow them? The army will agree to an alliance with Zakharchenko? Veterans of the ATO? Public activists?... It is easy to take over power now. But what will they do with it? On whom will they lean? Nobody will support them. Tymoshenko's populist interests will not help them. And what is the percentage of Savchenko's support? How many people are in her party? Vira and Ruban?
Perhaps, if she had not been so carried away by her martyrdom, she would have understood what politics is. And then she would either shot herself, or began to CHANGE it from within. But... she did not understand anything, so she decided to SHOOT from the inside.
Savchenko really could effectively make a coup. But for this she should have fought, as, for example, Yarosh does, combining deputy's mandate with the Kalashnikov assault rifle. She should have fought not for peace at any cost, but for Ukraine! Then she would be taken seriously and people would follow her.
In general, either we are not shown something, or Savchenko sisters are awful strategists.
However, she achieved her goal – she is again in the spotlight, she is a hero for a large number of people who hate power, she is a martyr, she is in her usual environment...
Judging by her videos, speeches and money ($8 thousand for a bus to transport weapons), someone other than Ruban prepared and advised her for this role. This someone probably achieved his goal too. At least, one of them: we were again divided into opponents and supporters of the authorities. It is dangerous both from outside, and from within for a belligerent country. This can strengthen both Putin and Poroshenko with his "hustlers". But if the first one is opposed by the army, the second one is opposed by the society, and we all will feel their gain...
In fact, Savchenko became not Jeanne d'Arc, but Nadiya d'Arc – the dark side of the protest, the opposite of Joan, who fought against the invader. Because the real feat is accomplished not for the sake of heroism, but for the sake of what will happen after it and thanks to it.
Serhiy Harmash, OstroV