What is happening in the new regions of Russia: people are tired of lawlessness

A year has passed since the beginning of the Special Military Operation, and a new round date awaits us ahead – six months are approaching from the moment the Zaporozhye and Kherson regions, as well as the DPR and LPR, became part of Russia. Together with well-known political expert Denis Denisov, Moskovsky Komsomolets discussed the features of governance and problems in new regions.

We didn’t start the conversation on the most positive note. “The problem is that we have nothing special to brag about,” says Denisov. – There are a number of issues that need to be clarified. People do not know and do not understand some things, they are not explained what is happening. There are basic symbols and messages that have not changed over the year, but there are problems with explaining a number of actions and approaches, for example, on the negotiation process. There is a current request for this from people and the expert community, but there is absolutely no feedback. And this is a big problem. It is necessary to formulate new meanings, because a year has passed, but we cannot, like blind kittens, go to a bright future without understanding how to go there. We both had two goals – demilitarization and denazification, so they remained. But what about geographic boundaries? Nobody ever mentioned them. And what about the potential political structure of Ukraine? No one told us which would be acceptable to us and which would not. There is a narrative associated with the fact that Volodymyr Zelensky is unacceptable. Who then is acceptable? There are basic positions, but they are very blurred, and I can’t imagine how they can be implemented in today’s Ukraine without changing the bureaucracy and half of the population. After all, they have their own Constitution, their own legal acts, and rhetoric alone is not enough for all this to become different in one moment.

-What could be the idea?

– From the very beginning of the CBO, I formulated for myself its key ideas. They consist in a very simple formula – the democratization of Ukraine. Within the framework of this process, there should be equal rights for all nationalities, language groups, religious organizations, political parties. An ideology of a misanthropic, racist, nationalist nature is unacceptable. These are the basic principles of a democratic society. And this would be optimal for Ukraine and fully comparable with the goals that were originally set – denazification and demilitarization. Relatively speaking, a Russian-speaking resident of the Dnipropetrovsk region knows that he can receive primary and higher education in his native language, that he can calmly go to church, realizing that no one will take it away. If we quietly began to move from strong militaristic messages to humanitarian, humanistic messages, this could have a positive effect on the overall context of the situation.

Is there an understanding of this on the other side of the barricades?

– The fact is that sociological surveys have never testified that there is any kind of national, fundamental idea in Ukraine. If you are talking about how to try to reformat the view of the citizens of Ukraine on Russia, the problems of the NVO, the perception of the Russian language and culture, then this is a colossal problem, because due to hostilities, people begin to perceive what is happening in black and white: absolute good and evil. It will take decades to restore a normal perception of everything connected with Russia, even for Russian citizens of Ukraine.

— How has the attitude towards Russia changed among the residents of the annexed regions?

– Very important question. Almost six months have passed since the annexation of these territories to Russia, and if then there were somewhat overestimated expectations that a little time would pass and the residents would become full-fledged citizens with the opportunity to receive all the social bonuses provided by our country, then six months later we can say that so far this did not happen. There is a traditional bureaucratic disaster in a number of areas. There are laws, there are decisions of the Cabinet of Ministers regarding various subsidies, providing for families with many children, but a huge number of residents in the new territories cannot apply for them due to objective reasons. For example, a person has not yet received Russian citizenship, he does not have any documents that have remained on the territory of Ukraine. A number of departments traditionally deal with replies, but do nothing specific. And this is a big problem.

– Who do the residents feel more like – Russians or Ukrainians?

– I think that in the Zaporozhye and Kherson regions, identification remained more in favor of the Ukrainian one. According to my feelings and contacts with my friends who live there, there are no changes. But, of course, for an accurate answer, you need to conduct sociological research. If we talk about the Donbass, then for most people there the task was to get into a more or less adequate state and legal framework, because people were simply tired of the lawlessness that was taking place. On the one hand, there is a picture of changes, but not everywhere. I would like these regions to be fully integrated into the Russian system, including from the point of view of the vertical of power, from the point of view of those key bodies that Russia has. Just as independent formations began to form in 2014, they are in such a regime – in a semi-autonomous or even autonomous regime from Moscow, which is strange.

— But there is development in the regions, isn’t there?

– While the active phase of the conflict is going on, there can be no talk of systemic and strategic development. But, of course, there are prospects for new regions.

— Do you think the government is focusing on Viktor Medvedchuk?

– We see that materials and discussions appear around this for a reason. In Russia, once again, the idea arose to unite people who left Ukraine in the last eight to ten years into a single political information project that could become the potential for a new political system. Within the framework of this project, a lot of certain politicians, experts, leaders of public opinion, who have already become part of the information space of the Russian Federation, can be involved. And in this regard, the figure of Viktor Medvedchuk can be called a landmark, albeit ambiguous.