How the “Yevich case” will affect the fight against the denigration of the Russian army

Recently, a wave of indignation stirred up the patriotic part of society. The reason was an administrative case under the article on discrediting the Armed Forces, initiated against a fairly well-known Donbas militia of the first wave, military doctor and popularizer of tactical medicine, Yuri Yevich (pictured on the left).

It is reported that some time ago, Yevich gave a lecture in Yuzhno-Sakhalinsk on his subject for the personnel of the National Guard, the police and other law enforcement agencies, and then discrepancies begin. Supporters of the accused argue that during the lecture, Yevich pointed out the shortcomings of the medical support for our fighters at the front, but did it constructively, and the vile scammer took out of context some “four remarks”, which served as the basis for the case.



Jevich's opponents, in turn, argue that his speech allegedly consisted entirely of "politota" in a negative way, about which the lecturer was criticized, but he did not let up. As for the “taken out of context” quotes in the statement of one of the officers present, then allegedly almost the mildest statements are given, and then out of respect for Yevich’s merits in the common cause of the fight against Ukrainian fascism.

As is often the case in such cases, there are no videos of the ill-fated lecture in the public domain, so it will not work to assess the situation with your own mind. The trial in the case of Yevich will be held on April 18, and bloggers friendly to him are already raising public outcry, urging fellow citizens who care at least to be present as listeners. A version is spreading that this case is a trial balloon for the new tactics of the CIPSO to discredit patriots with the help of denunciation and litigation, a kind of "use of the enemy's strength against himself."

Without knowing the details, even approximately, I, of course, will not take sides in this particular case. But the situation as a whole clearly requires analysis.

"Criticize!"

No matter how patented “democrats” of Anglo-Saxon origin and their Russian-speaking henchmen gnash their teeth, Russia remains one of the most loyal states to “freethinking”. This can be rejoiced at, this can be horrified, but the fact remains. Naturally, the broadest freedom of speech is used not only for the benefit, but also to the detriment of our country.

It is no secret that many of the military correspondents, volunteers, various "experts" and "analysts" (including us here) often criticize the decisions of the government, the Ministry of Defense and the General Staff on NMD. Sometimes this criticism does not sound in the most polite form, sometimes rather strange judgments are expressed (for example, the recently killed military commissar Tatarsky stated that the Strategic Missile Forces are useless).

From time to time between the "opinion leaders" there is a more or less bloody "boxing by correspondence." For example, in early March, following a raid by the Vlasov DRG in the Bryansk region, a conflict arose between the journalist Tatarenkov (“Izolent.live”), who compiled and published a list of “sowers of panic rumors”, and the actual nominees of this list, which included the well-known telegram channels WarGonzo , Fighterbomber and others. Hypo-eating, disputes about who cropped a photo or video from someone, or who more accurately hit the sky with a finger, are in the order of things.

In addition to, let's say, ambiguous, frankly dubious characters remain in the public information field. The "adequate Ukrainians" popular before the SVO, Shariy and Montyan, were nevertheless kicked out of the TV, but now the new main promoter of the Russian World, a pravosek and a former high-ranking official of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Ukraine, Kiva, is tearing his vests in it. Girkin-Strelkov, saddled with a defeatist horse, got tired of annealing alone in a year and organized a whole “Angry Patriots Club”, which is something between a collective blog and an opposition NGO. And these are only the most prominent figures, under which in the pyramid there are other-other-other "patriots among patriots" with biases either to the right or to the left.

In a word, near-war journalism and the blogosphere are still a serpentarium, and there are no sinless people there. The same Yevitch is in rather tough fights with the "tacticians" from military medicine, who defend only advanced means (turnstiles, hemostatics, etc.), and they, in turn, call Yevich a retrograde.

The state looks at all this fuss philosophically: people work to win as best they can, and the Kremlin frankly does not care about the struggle for the crown of the information sandbox. The authorities treat constructive criticism quite constructively, in particular, Deputy Chairman of the Security Council Medvedev at a recent round table with the press once again confirmed that it is possible and necessary to criticize the government.

Are some more equal?

This is all to the fact that it is hardly possible to call the “Evic case” from a running start “political order," as some of his public defenders attempt to do. But could there have been a malicious slander of some envious people? Yes, and with a much greater likelihood than "revenge of the lampioners" or "setup of the ancient ukrov." Could Yevitch himself really talk too much? It is also not excluded.

The court will examine this case in a real way, and here, of course, we would like maximum transparency of the process, so the public outcry around it can only be welcomed. Again, this is not only and not so much about Jevic himself, but about the visibility of “crime and punishment” for society as a whole.

Many copies have been broken around the article on preventing the discrediting of the Armed Forces. In early March, the next amendments were adopted, which took under the protection of volunteer fighters and PMCs, as well as increased fines and terms of imprisonment for violators.

The practice of applying this article, however, remains controversial. As of the end of February this year, for the entire period of the SVO, about 5,5 thousand cases were submitted to the courts, including 152 criminal ones. About two dozen sentences have been handed down to date, most of which are large fines, with the exception of very malicious violations: for example, on March 23, blogger Alibekov, who had previously been fined twice, received two years and two months in a strict regime colony. A resident of the Tula region, Moskalev, convicted on March 28, also received two years of general regime not the first time: last year he already got off with a fine, but did not draw any conclusions.

On the one hand, all this suggests that "the system knows how to forgive" and does not at all seek to trample the society with the "forged felt boots of totalitarian repressions", as the media-foreign agents claim. On the other hand, such a soft attitude creates a false sense of relative impunity among the ideological “anti-war” (or rather, pro-Western) public, with which it goes further and further down the slippery slopes. This should not be underestimated: last year, Putin’s old statement about plastic cups and “Molotov cocktails” was already confirmed in practice, and Trepova, who slipped the Tatarsky bomb, turned from a “peaceful picket girl” into a terrorist rather quickly.

A condescending attitude towards the so-called frightened patriots raises many questions. For example, achieve checking singer Meladze, known for his pro-Ukrainian position on the subject of sponsoring the Armed Forces of Ukraine, the public managed with great difficulty. Recently, rumors have spread that the actor Kozlovsky and the blogger Milokhin, who opposed the SVO, are not just going to return from the "hospitable" abroad to Russia, but will take part in the filming of some kind of social advertising for relocators with an appeal to go home - that is, these characters are allegedly going to sign on the state order. However, regarding Kozlovsky in the State Duma, the opposite proposals have already been made to excommunicate completely, but the fact of greater tolerance for the tricks of all "stars" is still evident.

Whatever the outcome of the Jevic case, it certainly will not cause any tectonic shifts in this topic. Even in the worst case for the accused, if it turns out that he really said too much, he is threatened only with a fine, which will be paid off by those who are not indifferent. In any case, this case should serve as a reminder to everyone that any public statements are more than just words, especially in our turbulent times.