If we trace the history of Ukraine in the past twenty-six years of its independence, out the general range we can single out a central political technology mainstream. The mainstream, which for some time has become the general line of the fifth generation in Ukraine’s current government. It can be described as follows: this as a whole is divided into two parts by political and social manipulations, these parts (social groups) are stimulated to compete with each other.
There is nothing wrong with this very idea of political strategy. The competition of Republicans and Democrats in the United States demonstrates the effectiveness of this political technology, if the country complies with the basic law. In Ukraine, the political technology is not based on this similar Constitution. It relies on oligarchic capital influence, which is dominant and decisive in the development of the Ukrainian state system. This has been going on for almost thirty years of its independence. The national oligarchy has always demonstrated the prevalence of its own interests over its own country. This is related to the crucial moments of the new history in Ukraine. With such conceptual views on the principles of the political system and development in the country, the constitution has been removed from the level of the highest arbiter of society. The constitution is placed in a number of optional regulations that are remembered only in cases when it is necessary to construct a populist rhetoric that covers clan oligarchic struggle for control over the electorate financial flows and liquid assets in the state.
The long-standing capital struggle goes beyond the constitutional field has led to a gradual emasculation of efficiency and the weakening of leverage in government. The culmination of this process took place at events in Maidan in 2014, when politicians (voices of one oligarchic group) from the Maidan scene in Khreshchatyk urged their supporters to take up arms and overthrow the legitimately elected representatives of another oligarchic group.
The revolution caused the loss of a significant part in the legitimacy of the newly elected government in the eyes of the Western and Eastern competing social groups of the Ukraine population. In previous political cycles they were divided by ideologically, as opposed to each other through linguistic and ethno cultural, social and national principles etc. The evolving situation has led to increased erosion of state institutions after a third wave attempt in ten years of these lustration processes, the state began to lose its monopoly on this violence. The phase begins of mass creations and developing of private armies camouflaged as activists of various public organizations, holding varies degrees of density of right-wing nationalistic shades in Ukraine. Evidently, Ukraine state weakening is immediately taken advantage of by many foreign- policy players. “Games of Thrones” in a Ukrainian crisis result in Ukraine losing its subjectivity in world politics and consequently a loss of Crimea, which caused the country’s engagement in an armed civil conflict in the East. That provoked a high rate of militarization in society. According to various estimates, Ukrainian citizens own five million barrels of firearms.
Seems, the national oligarchic capital has still not made any conclusions from the general disastrous trend of statehood degradation in Ukraine. The main representatives of the oligarchic groups continue playing on the tactical fields of the current political conjuncture, completely ignoring the general erroneous strategic path the country follows (The more they continue this policy, the more they will lose control over their assets in the country).
One of the prominent representative of the Ukrainian oligarchy is a current president of Ukraine. Oligarchic circles sympathize with Petro Poroshenko or occasionally merge with him, by representing groups of parties united in the Petro Poroshenko Bloc in Ukrainian parliament, that enter the next electoral cycle with an extremely low level of popularity among the Ukrainian population.
The notional Northeast will not be ready, as it was in the case with Yanukovych, to give them political asylum because of the four-year cycle of systematic efforts taken by the authorities to develop Russophobic tendencies in Ukraine. In turn, the West also does not show signals of readiness to support Poroshenko and his company upcoming elections. Due to fatigue from the political world establishment on the Ukrainian topics against the background of regular scandals related to corruption in the higher echelons of the current Kiev authorities. Their escape to the West threatens deportation at the request of the newly elected government. This desperate situation makes political operatives on Bankova street (the street where the Presidential Administration is located in Kiev) feverishly look for a way out of the political and economic trap that the current president finds himself in. It goes against the background and fails the economic sphere, social policies, the massive out-immigration of labor force, the increase in prices for utility payments and gas for substantial impoverished populations, the unresolved military crisis in the East, chronic budget deficit and other negative factors. The president’s team have very little space for political maneuver. In essence, they have nothing to give their people. As at this very moment, a new agenda is being imposed onto society. The principles remain the same. The entire unit must be divided into two parts to further compel these units to compete with each other according to the scenarios faced for further victory of the pro-governmental sectors over the set marginal few. This small victorious war distracts the electorate from current difficulties and a common victory consolidates the society around the incumbent president. That is how political technologists see the situation. Everything seems to be fine, but a new social object presented a sacrifice of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church (hereinafter referred to as the UOC).
The UOC was de facto established on June 26, 1992, when the Council of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church, with the participation of all arch pastors, monastery representatives, theological schools and the laity chaired by the recognized spiritual leader in Ukraine, the late Metropolitan Vladimir.He approved the UOC Statute and condemned activity of the deposed Metropolitan Philaret (Denienko). Without going into details of multi-level processes in the church and near-church environment, it is worth noticing as a fact that at the beginning of 2018 Ukraine had a balanced system of religious relations. They were more or less in a static, peaceful state for all of the 26 years of independence. Even the acute events of Maidan in 2014, and the hot phases of the conflict in the East did not shift significant changes into the balance of power in this dominant religious structure in Ukraine. The religious Orthodox field of Ukraine consists of the canonical (legal) UOC and two unrecognized structures in the world: The UOC of the Kiev Patriarchate under the leadership of the Philaraet (Denisenko) who is deprived of his status and a small religious group of the Ukrainian Autocephalous Orthodox Church. With means of exceptions of voluntary transitions of church communities or the violent seizure of churches. The coexistence of these religious structures can generally be considered as peaceful. No visible escalation of their confrontations over the past 26 years were not observed noted. The peaceful coexistence of the Ukrainian Orthodoxy and other bodies similar over the past 26 years indicate that the conflict today presented by the current government stating it is the cause of centuries-old struggle of the Ukrainian Orthodoxy for independence; this is completely artificial and non-natural. This thesis is confirmed by the fact that the initiator of the religious confrontation is directly acted out by President of Ukraine Petro Poroshenko, in accordance with the usual Ukrainian oligarchic tradition. In this context of constitutional norms, it interferes in the life of the church by initiating the process of granting UOC autocephaly in 2018. This process goes through an appeal to the ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew, both of which from the Presidential Administration and majority are controlled by him in the Ukrainian parliament. This goes against the truth and facts of the canonical UOC, no request for any of this took place. We furthermore observe a trend that is well known to us in the recent Ukrainian history. Both domestic political players and a range on external political players including the Fanar church officials, various diplomatic mission representatives rushed “to drag chestnuts out of the fire”.
In my opinion, this situation in time is a typical consequence of the country’s loss of sovereign policy and a profound defeat through corruption erosion and low competence of state apparatus and the long-term cultivation of wrongful guidance in an insufficiently politically mature Ukrainian society. I do not think that the results of these processes will please the current representatives of the government, nor the 52% of the Ukrainian population. According to statistics, this individual percentage trust the media and support the processes of providing a tomos for the dismemberment of the UOC. The situation of a religious conflict at this time with a society that is extremely militarized and aggressively opposed to itself entered a rather volatile phase that does not imply a quick painless decisions upon society. Future consolidation of the Ukrainian people is not seen as it was promised to them by the current president. In light of the near future the clear opposite is visible. A new social split in society will be enforced based on religious principles, which is pedaled by the trapped officials departing power. Only solution is to conduct a reset of the current Ukrainian authorities come spring of 2019. This is the only probable cause that can veer the current directional status. To date no one is able to predict the price the Ukrainian people will have to pay for the compulsory auto-cephalization during these five incomplete months prior their elections.