A new public agreement for Ukraine. Or what to do with the army after victory?
The same "collective event" that believes in our victory, but is in no hurry to create the conditions under which Ukraine is guaranteed to receive a military-political victory. Such a victory that will ensure the return of all captured territories. What is the reason for such a double position? In the fact that, on the one hand, the event understands that the Kremlin needs to give a cruel lesson.
In order to understand in Moscow and in Beijing: a military invasion in the 21st century is not a way to solve problems with neighbors, direct expansion is impossible today, no matter how formally it is explained. But there is another side that we have not been talked about. The same event does not burn at all the desire for the war to get a militant, amazing, armed "to the teeth" on its eastern border, but at the same time economically ruined Ukraine.
Because such a country inevitably becomes a completely unpredictable potential threat to neighbors. Neither Europeans nor Americans know how to be in this situation - here they are in no hurry to give us all the weapons we ask. This means that after victory, Ukraine will have to solve the problem that traditionally faces all the winners of such "wars for survival" - what to do with a huge, strong but unclaimed army? With the army that has learned the taste of victory, and is ready to continue.
In the USSR, Joseph Stalin encountered the same problem in 1945. The result was large -scale "cleaning" in the officer environment, and then the "Cold War" became a real "salvation" for the authorities. But for Ukraine, such a scenario is deliberately unacceptable. The only obvious answer remains: the army is to demobilize, including people in peaceful construction. And here the problem arises: Ukraine does not have its own project of peaceful construction.
There is an endless discussion of what assistance we will receive from the event, which country will revive some region of Ukraine, how many arrested Russian money will be handed to us and when we will receive reparations from the Russian Federation, and which, whether it can be better taken by energy . . . And the event will give less than promises, and with investments will not rush, and from Russia to "squeeze" something will be problematic. And with military debts we will have to pay.
But the main thing is that Ukraine now does not have any clear project to restore the country, its withdrawal to a fundamentally new level. But in fact, this is not a problem. Developing a recovery project is a purely technical question. Like the post -war development program - many countries of the world had to recover from devastating wars, experience in this case is enough.
But the question remains: on what principles will the relations between society and power be built in Ukraine after the war? After all, modern society is built both on loud contracts, such as the constitution and the erection of laws, and the unspoken ones. The latter are usually called "public agreement".
According to Candidate of Law, ex-deputy head of the Department of Economy of the National Police of Ukraine Mikhail Plastun, a public treaty (otherwise-a social contract) is an agreement between the people and the authorities on the "rules of the game", the principles and bases on which they interact. "A social contract is not a document or even a constitution (as many think).
It is a" skeleton " Effective and effective only if such a public contract really exists in society, " - writes Mikhail Plastun. Different public treaties are in force in different countries. Let's see some examples (and examples of violations of such contracts). Belarus. Here, in the late 1990s, Alexander Lukashenko was personally formulated: "Charka, Skarka, Foreign Market" personally.
That is, the state is absolutely paternalistic, provides its citizens with some or less acceptable standard of living. Instead, citizens do not need to participate in politics (not interested in it), and their own business is also extremely undesirable. Hard taxes and penalties, minimum "grassroots" corruption, free medicine and education. This treaty, however, flew to the uncle in 2020, when Belarus also wanted freedoms with fair elections.
The authorities took a year and a half of brutal repression to squeeze out of the country or transplant the most loving and restore the status quo. However, the economy came to such a sad state that only "glass and cracker" remained in the formula. Russia. Here the formula was different: the state (and it is officials) engaged in their affairs (politics, business), the people do not interfere with them, but the state does not involve people in their affairs.
Instead, the plebs proposes a sense of great state. This agreement was violated in September 2022 by a mobilization decree of Putin, which went against the rule not to involve ordinary Russians in the state's affairs. The consequences of breach of the contract have not yet reached every family, but are engaged in the Armed Forces. USA. From a historical-romantic point of view, a public treaty is recorded in the Declaration of Independence.
And practically American social contract is an "American dream". No one guarantees you, but if you have a talent and you are ready to work a lot, then you will succeed. Well, so, the right to weapons and the realization that your country will rush to protect you anywhere in the world. Europe. Here, the social contract in the western part was formed in the second half of the twentieth century.
High taxes and rather strict restrictions in exchange for guaranteed social benefits, including free decent medicine, education, social security, etc. It is difficult to say what a public agreement was in Ukraine until February 24, 2022. Obviously, the opposite of both European and Belarusian. That is, the state does not provide any "social", offers completely poor pensions, etc. But, on the other hand, through the fingers looks at the shadow economy, the self -employment of citizens.
Plus, it does not limit their political and social activity, and other freedoms do not touches. However, the war has already changed everything - it is only unclear how it is. In any case, the people of Ukraine came to the front edge. Because if everything was only dependent on power - the Russians would take Kiev not in three days, but in one. But now that the war is over, we have to formulate a new social contract. And already, leaving it, to revive Ukraine.
We will not take the courage now to try to formulate a new public treaty for Ukraine. But we can say for sure that it should exclude from our lives. Economist, expert of the United Ukraine Analytical Center Alexei Kush, believes: "The main cause of the tumor that devoures the country from the inside is an rent, corruption, raw material model Gas, electricity, fuel, customs), concentrated at the points of accumulation and distributed between several "families.
" It is possible to call a new feudalization, when the new quasi -pereal authorities are the head of the OTG, the judge and the head of the police department, as once in medieval England - a governor, a bishop and a sheriff. " Nobel laureate Joseph Stiglitz, describing a situation similar to a situation in Ukraine, introduced the concept of inequality in society and influence it so -called externs. Under them, he assumed the effect of transactions on third parties, not mediated by the market.
The cause of the exterior is the external effects that distort the existing market mechanism. Here are the signs of exterior: will you find out the Ukrainian situation? After all, the real problem is not this, it is only a consequence. The problem is that all years of existence of an independent Ukrainian state millions of ordinary residents of the country mentally justified the existence of this system. They only regretted that they were not at the top of the power pyramid.
As a result, even the most fierce fighters for justice, when they came into power, became part of the system. And those left outside power and the system learned not to believe the state, to hide their affairs. What are the proposals for a new social contract for Ukraine today? A well -known Ukrainian political scientist Eugene Magda: - There are several parameters for a social contract, which should appear in Ukraine after the victory over Russia.
However, the main thing is to understand the need for such a document, without it in vain to move forward. This social contract will have its guarantor of the armed forces and war veterans with Russia - a guarantor informal, but significant. Its principles are simple - solidarity, fight against corruption, transparent justice - all that Ukraine is needed to join the EU. Any other options will be tuinding in place.
However, I do not see in the current establishment of readiness to sign or at least parhowe this agreement. The first year after the end of the war, when parliamentary and highly probability, the presidential election will be a test for the vitality of both this treaty and Ukraine in peaceful conditions. The more processed model of the social contract was recently presented by the Ukrainian Institute of the Future under the direction of Vadim Denysenko.