Thomas Fazi
As uneventful diplomatic talks in Istanbul wrapped up with little more than discussions of a prisoners-of-war swap and vague promises of further meetings, Volodymyr Zelensky found himself facing a crisis much closer to home: unprecedented protests erupting across major Ukrainian cities. Thousands took to the streets to denounce a controversial law that, according to Zelensky, was designed to “curtail Russian influence” — but which would, in reality, compromise the independence of the country’s two leading anti-corruption agencies at a time when both were reportedly closing in on senior members of Zelensky’s own administration.
The law’s passage sparked not only mass protests within Ukraine but also widespread condemnation in Western capitals. Ursula von der Leyen was quick to issue a sharp rebuke: the legislation conflicted with Europe’s “respect for the rule of law”, and could jeopardise Ukraine’s EU accession prospects. The US government even went so far as to order Zelensky to withdraw the legislation. Meanwhile, Western media gave the protests ample coverage. For the first time since the Russian invasion, Zelensky’s domestic policies were openly criticised by outlets that had previously lionised him as a heroic defender of democracy.
Reeling from the backlash, Zelensky has sought to calm the storm by introducing a new anti-corruption bill that would re-establish the agencies’ independence. But several questions remain. Why did Ukrainians, who have tolerated far more unpopular government actions since the start of the war, choose to protest now? Why did the Western establishment so energetically back the demonstrations? And why did Zelensky even move against the agencies in the first place? The scale and intensity of the protests were surprising in many respects.
Since February 2022, Zelensky’s government has implemented deeply unpopular measures — from extending martial law to shuttering opposition parties and media outlets — without triggering comparable public unrest. These measures have been used not only to centralise power but also to neutralise any dissenting voices that might challenge his government’s “war‑at‑all‑costs” policy, by framing any questioning of the latter as unpatriotic or even treasonous. In this way, measures initially justified as temporary wartime necessities have been instrumentalised to entrench executive authority and suppress alternative perspectives on Ukraine’s future.
No comments:
Post a Comment