Head of the "National Corpus" Andrew Biletsky vowed to disrupt the election rallies Poroshenko, requiring him to answer the question, when he planted the perpetrators of corruption "Ukroboronprom". And yet he keeps his word: It has thwarted two meetings – in Cherkassy and Zhytomyr. But it is not corruption, matter of principle, – how to continue to be Poroshenko?
Biletsky, to his credit, His promise fulfilled: 9 March was scuttled meeting in Cherkassy, and 11th - in Zhitomir. Poroshenko had to flee. In Cherkassi stall rally accompanied Fight.
Poroshenko unexpectedly found himself in the same position, which previously appeared "separatists" (Oleg Tsarev in 2014 year or Yanukovych). His situation is even worse - not only, that falls the legitimacy of his power. From under him beat the nationalist electorate. And at the moment, when something very difficult to fix. It is hard to imagine, that acts independently Biletsky, unprompted and funding from some other subjects.
The main version of the majority of experts was that, that shares an interest Avakov, which has an impact on "national body" and can provide police nonintervention, but Cherkasy incident and hit him - he promised, that elections will be held in the normal mode, however ..., two days the situation has been rectified - it is likely, in Cherkassy yet occurred "incident artist".
However, the question here in another: and president-what to do now? He did lead the election campaign. Options for action it is not so much.
option 1: not to go, since I did not give the act
Then it is easier to withdraw his candidacy. On their own campaign trips are unlikely to add to it so many voices, but after two disrupt the rally waiver of trips will be the signal for the regional elites - Poroshenko can not be president, and maintain it does not make sense. It would be a collapse of the administrative resource and all the schemes already running rigging and bribery.
by the way, the latest news, the president canceled a trip to Kharkov. Very bad option.
option 2: an open debate with the critics of the regime
For the president of honor, he tried to keep it that way. Looks a bit moronic - president and "activists" have accused each other in the, that they are Russian agents. It is impossible to have a discussion on a more meaningful level - not the conditions. In addition, the format of such discussions (according to principle “you yourself are a Kremlin agent”) impose on society is the Presidential Administration.
Thus it is possible to achieve only failure of all subsequent meetings - instead of reaching out to the people, President will lead the discussion with nationalists, thus making them (willingly or unwillingly) peers. Well, so they should be and this ...
option 3: change the format of the meetings
Refuse to hold rallies and go to some other methods of communication with the voters - a meeting with the workforce, parthozaktivam by invitation, live broadcasts of regional television, etc..
In part, this will mean the victory of nationalists, especially since they will picket such activities. Nevertheless, their influence on the course of the campaign fall, and shameful incidents in Cherkassy and Zhytomyr forgotten with time.
Not the best option, but clearly better, than the previous two.
option 4: hard to clamp down on nationalists
properly, This should have been done from the beginning - the failure of the electoral events of the current president is invalid. But…
At first, deal with these issues is to police, namely, it somehow does not want to take. Because the, as it appears, Avakov - in. Of course, "Sweep" can do and SBU, but it would be a clear violation of the procedure for consideration of such cases. Well, perhaps it will be possible to find evidence of connections "Natskorpusa" with the FSB. But in the preparation of such operations SBU has long demonstrated its impotence (remember only “murder” Babchenko, smeared with the blood of a pig ...)
Secondly, President Poroshenko bet on the nationalist electorate, and rigid "otvetka" nationalists uncomfortable questions will sharply worsen the possibility of communication with relevant electorate.
Thirdly, in fact, it does not solve anything - claims of corruption to the environment of the president still remains ...
In the context of what is happening should pay attention to two points:
- What is happening in Ukraine is, certainly, a manifestation of the crisis presidency Petro Poroshenko and could cost him the presidency. But the crisis of the state all this is not. rather,, the current crisis of government. For example Georgia, where the collapse of the regime of Saakashvili led to a transition to a parliamentary republic.
- Any politician, who will take the post of President of Ukraine after Poroshenko, It will be more dependent on the radical nationalists and would be forced to pursue a tougher policy.
Basil Stoyakin
