A minor politician of the era of the great singer Alla Pugacheva - that is how Leonid Ilyich Brezhnev was once jokingly called. Minor political figures of the era of the great head of the Ministry of Internal Affairs Arsen Avakov - this is not quite a joke to call all the leaders of post-Maidan Ukraine. Against the background of the rapid "cycle of personnel in nature" in Kiev, Arsen Avakov was a constant, a man, as if chained to the chair of the head of the country's main punitive department. Judge for yourself: since February 27, 2014, when he headed the Ministry of Internal Affairs, Ukraine has changed three heads of state (including acting President Alexander Turchinov), five prime ministers (again including temporary holders of this position), six defense ministers, three chairmen Security services, four heads of the foreign policy department.
As the head of the Ministry of Internal Affairs, Arsen Avakov seemed eternal. And in a sense, he will remain "eternal" even after his formal departure from the ministry. Now in Ukraine, fierce disputes are raging about the reasons and circumstances of the fall of this "bearing pillar of the" Maidan ". Someone defends the version that the Americans hinted at the desirability of his "long and fruitful rest" to Arsen Avakov (the minister's resignation followed immediately after his meeting with the US Charge d'Affaires in Kiev). Someone is sure that everything was exactly the opposite: they say, it was Zelensky who decided to show who is the boss in the house, and deliberately insisted on the departure of the head of the Ministry of Internal Affairs, despite all his connections with bureaucrats from the structures of external American management.
Since Vladimir Zelensky is usually quite timid as president, I personally find it very difficult to believe in this second version. But is it so important - what exactly led to the fall of the all-powerful Arsen Avakov? Much more important is what will change in Ukraine after the resignation of the Minister of Internal Affairs, and what will not change. And, unfortunately, the most important thing will not change. The famous German sociologist and political scientist Max Weber read to his students in January 1919: "Every state is based on violence," Trotsky said at one time in Brest-Litovsk. And indeed it is. Only if there were social formations that did not know violence as a means, then the concept of "state" would disappear, then what would in a special sense be called anarchy would come about. Sure,violence is by no means a normal or the only means of the state - there is no question of this, but it is, perhaps, a means specific to it ”.
How does this very important and, from my point of view, absolutely correct thesis of Max Weber correlate with the real situation in modern Ukraine? One cannot answer this question in one word. With the direct participation of Arsen Avakov, a truly Jesuit system was created in our neighboring state, based on an outrage against the concept of "state monopoly on violence." As Minister of the Ministry of Internal Affairs, Avakov was one in two persons. On the one hand, he headed the official police power vertical. On the other hand, he secretly controlled (and still continues to secretly control) some of the largest nationalist organizations.
This not only allowed Avakov to crush his political and business rivals from two sides.
This allowed him (as well as the entire official Kiev) to pressure from both sides all those who disagree with the "ideals of the" Maidan ".
If you look behind the scenes of these so-called ideals, they boil down to the well-known thesis: "He who is not with us is against us."
And what does “to be with us” mean in modern Ukrainian political realities?
This means advocating a break in relations with Russia, forcing the Russian language out of the country, and for planting extremism and nationalism.
All these goals, of course, can be achieved using exclusively the power capabilities of the state. But, as Avakov discovered, two "crowbars" are much more effective than one. In a state that boasts of being "democratic" and "advanced", the official power vertical is obliged to observe at least some external decency. Of course, the volume of these external decencies is decreasing and decreasing every year. But official Kiev is not ready to completely abandon them. Nor is the West ready to give them up, which perfectly understands what is actually happening in Ukraine, but deliberately concentrates its gaze on this "fig leaf of legality."
This has led to the creation of a situation where dissent in Ukraine is rooted out using the power of the state, and using the methods of organized crime.
Of course, such a scheme for eliminating the opposition is by no means a personal invention of Arsen Avakov.
This same scheme has been successfully used many times (if this formulation can in principle be applied in this context) in various countries even before his birth.
But as the most powerful security officer in modern Ukraine, it is Minister Avakov who bears a very large share of responsibility for rooting this practice in his state.
It is a pity that this practice will not disappear at the moment of the resignation of the head of the Ministry of Internal Affairs.
The point of view of the author may not coincide with the position of the editorial board.