Perspectief 2019-44

Perspectief 100 MH17 – the Ukrainian Context The Russian media wanted to create a negative attitude to the Ukrainian protests among the Russians. Their main concern was the civil character of the Revolution of dignity. If the protesters were Ukrainian nationalists, as the media presented them, then the Russian public would not sympathize with them. However, if they are civil activists that protest against the same problems that the Russian society faces, then their example would be- come dangerous for the Russian political regime. 4. Authoritarianism vs Revolution of dignity Indeed, the political regime that Viktor Yanukovych was building in Ukraine used the blue- prints for corruption and authoritarianism drafted by Vladimir Putin. Putin used post- Soviet authoritarian leaders to impose his socio-political model in the countries of the former Communist bloc. That was his way to restore the neo-Soviet empire—the ultimate goal of his presidency. Putin succeeded in most of these countries and was almost suc- cessful in Ukraine. However, the Maidan became a stumbling bloc on the path of Putin and an existential threat to his regime. The Revolution of dignity challenged the model of corrupted authoritarianism not only in Ukraine, but also in other post-Soviet countries, including Russia. To prevent the spread of the Ukrainian civil strife to Russia, Vladimir Putin decided to transform this strife to military conflict. War was his response to peaceful protests. He thus planned to reach two goals: to stop the Ukrainian protests at the Russian border, and to mobilize the Russian society around his agenda. He chose Crimea as the main article of his agenda. Both Soviet and post-Soviet myths presented Crimea as a historical part of Russia. Crimea was also a vulnerable part of Ukraine. For Putin, it was easy to take it and make a foundation of his legitimacy after swapping offices with Dmitry Medvedev. This step justified itself. Most Russian conservatives and liberals, who were polarized in 2011- 12, found themselves on the same page in supporting the annexation of Crimea. This has been called a post-Crimean consensus of the Russian society.