“Don’t escalate, because Putin will attack”: how the evening of February 23 passed

Source: Author’s Facebook page

The evening of the previous day. 11 p.m. on February 23, 2022. I’m driving along the Zhytomyr highway from Kyiv home to Vorzel. Tired and angry.

A difficult and nerve-wracking day in parliament has just ended. Many hours of heated discussions, with insignificant results for such an important time.

A day similar to the previous ones over the past two years. And also similar to the plot of the movie “Don’t look up” – any calls to pay attention to the real threat caused misunderstanding, or even became an occasion for jokes in the style of “what if Putin attacks?”.

Over the past three months, intelligence officials and Western media have begun to speculate that an attack is imminent. This has had no effect on the decision of parliament, whose majority continued to view the threat as a fabrication.

The deputies of the “Servant of the People” gained particular confidence in this after February 16. This date was called the probable day of the Russian attack in the West. The Ukrainian authorities decided to celebrate Unity Day then. The attack did not happen, and then the deputies from the government, dressed in embroidered shirts, felt like winners.

No, not over Putin (he didn’t attack and won’t attack) – over the opposition alarmists who for some reason believed the West, and not their president, who promised kebabs in May. The atmosphere of such a victory did not fade from the walls of the Verkhovna Rada even a week later. Therefore, any calls for strengthening defense capabilities were perceived as a manifestation of alarmism.

“Don’t escalate” remained the main political message of the authorities on February 23.

On a pleasant note, the speaker announced the creation of an inter-factional parliamentary association “Agenda: Decolonization”, which I headed. It took a lot of time and effort to collect the signatures of 39 deputies of this parliament who understood the importance of such an issue. At that time, even the signatories had no idea how hot the topic of decolonization would become in the coming months.

The adoption of the law on civilian firearms in the first reading seemed important. I spoke from the rostrum, supporting it: “In the conditions of Russian armed aggression, free possession of weapons is not only an opportunity to finally guarantee the right of every person to self-defense. It is, above all, a way to make armed resistance truly nationwide.

The Armed Forces of Ukraine are ready to defend our state. We are deploying territorial defense that will stop the enemy. And we support all decisions necessary to strengthen the armed forces. But this is not enough. It is necessary that every Ukrainian has the opportunity to protect the state and himself. So that the words “Ukrainians will resist” become not just a good call, but a warning to the enemy. So that every lustful “nravitsa – ne nravitsa” every Ukrainian can stop with a shot.

There were only a few hours left before the automatic weapons would be handed out in the center of Kyiv to anyone willing to defend the capital.

The most disappointing thing about this day is that we only partially succeeded in convincing the parliamentary majority of the need to redistribute the budget in favor of the army. Instead of supporting our proposal for an additional 50 billion, the Verkhovna Rada voted to allocate less than half of this amount. At the same time, the chairman of the Finance Committee, Hetmantsev, announced that more funds for defense threaten to unbalance the budget and – therefore – the normal functioning of the country.

The main discussion of the day – the declaration of a state of emergency or martial law in the country – ended similarly unsuccessfully for opposition deputies.

The president prepared the first option, and of course, it was the one that the parliamentary majority under his control wanted to support. The opposition insisted on the need to introduce martial law. Unlike the state of emergency, which is introduced in the event of a terrorist threat, a man-made or natural disaster, it envisaged preparing for an external threat.

Next to me in the hall that day was sitting deputy Ihor Vasylkovsky. In general, he was probably a good man, he liked to joke, watch funny skits at meetings. He always obediently pressed the button that the leaders of the Servant of the People faction demanded. Of course, he listened to his people this time too. Although, it seemed, he heard a little of us too.

Surprised and somewhat frightened, he asked: “No, what do you really think, that a war is starting?”

The next day, when it did start, I didn’t see him in the hall anymore. It seems he appeared there only a few months later. And even then not for long – in July, the president, whom he served so faithfully, issued a decree to deprive him of Ukrainian citizenship for having another. Apparently, the faithful servant fell under the distribution so that it would not be said that only Kolomoisky and Korban were deprived of Ukrainian passports.

Meanwhile, on February 23, the discussion lasted for several hours, with breaks for attempts to reach an agreement on the sidelines. The authorities accused us of destroying the unity needed for the country and even of provoking Russia into war.

We did vote on the presidential proposal with some changes that we insisted on, seeing the threat of using the state of emergency to fight against the opposition.

These were not unfounded fears. A month earlier, when Western warnings of a Russian attack were already blaring, the authorities had tried to detain Petro Poroshenko after he returned to Ukraine from a trip abroad. I remember well the date of the court that determined the preventive measure for the ex-president, accused of treason – January 19.

A symbolic date for me as a Maidan protester is the day of the beginning of the violent confrontation during the Revolution of Dignity. This time, despite the tense situation outside the courthouse, where thousands of people gathered, there were no mass clashes. There was only a scuffle between the protesters and the police.

And January 19 is the day when US Secretary of State Anthony Blinken was in Kyiv. He once again tried to draw President Zelenskyy’s attention to another – real – threat to him and the country.

The Washington Post article states that it was on this day that the Americans informed the Ukrainian leadership about the Russian plan to seize Kyiv using the military airport in Gostomel. This place is located a few kilometers from my home, where I was heading by night several hours before the storming of the airport.

Suddenly, on the oncoming lane leading to Kyiv, I saw a heavy military truck pulling a lone tank on its platform. What was strange was not so much the tank as the fact that it was the only one. Perhaps it was being taken for repairs. What I saw reminded me that despite the fact that another day had ended relatively calmly, the war was close.

Performing an evening ritual that has become traditional in recent weeks, I drove to a gas station and filled up the tank. A few days later, this brand new gas station burned down after coming under fire. As did the rest of the road infrastructure along the route from Kyiv to Makarov.

Around midnight I was finally home. The evening was surprisingly warm and mild for February. So I paused outside to catch my breath. A bird was calling again in a tree near the house. My wife had noticed it a week ago: “It’s screaming in a disturbing way.” I thought so too, but instead I joked that it was a harbinger of spring.

Mom, after watching another political show on TV, and son, after an active day in the Irpin kindergarten, were fast asleep. My wife waited for me. We sat for a while in the living room on the sofa. My cat Marusya jumped onto my lap. It was nice to pet her, recounting the vicissitudes of a difficult day.

The last day of peace in our town on the outskirts of the capital.

Also follow “Pryamim” on Facebook , X , Telegram , and Instagram.

• Materials published in the “OPINIONS” section reflect the opinion of the author of the publication, who bears full responsibility for the accuracy of the information.
• The editorial staff of prm.ua may not share the opinions expressed in the author’s material.
• The owner of the webpage in the “OPINIONS” section is the author of the publication.