Newspapers’ headlines have lately been graced with the sordid topic of the latest words to fly from Donald Trump’s mouth. But he is not the only person who can use fiery language:
“All I can do is show, by my example, that Russia, with its ‘statehood’ and its totalitarian regime can be made to knuckle under if you are fearless and unbowed.
Now, you wanted my last word? Here is my final word! Can everyone see well?
[points her middle finger at the court]
Now, interpreter, please include my gesture in your translation.”
So said former Ukrainian soldier Nadiya Savchenko in the middle of a hunger strike to a Russian court. Savchenko was charged with illegally crossing the Russian border and directing artillery fire towards Russian journalists. The previous story was that she was captured by pro-Russian separatists and handed over to Russia to face punishment for the journalists’ murder, which agrees more with the evidence provided by her mobile phone—except it is still unable to explain how she managed to direct artillery fire an hour after being captured. All of this happened in July 2014. Savchenko gave the court the finger at her trial in March, nearly two years after her capture, when it found her guilty.
Savchenko intends to be a returning hero or a martyr: either she is returned to Ukraine or she dies of thirst in a dry hunger strike. Either way, she does not intend to serve the 23-year sentence given to her by the court days after the trial.
The Russian media’s treatment of Savchenko has been, simply put, awful. To be fair, Savchenko had joined a volunteer unit called the Aidar battalion, which Amnesty International has accused of depriving civilians of food aid. The Aidar says the food wouldn’t have reached civilians anyways, though Amnesty International’s evidence of other ill-doing is solid. Nevertheless, the extent of Savchenko’s participation in such activities is unknown, the charges against her are unrelated, and her critics often go too far. “Judging by the bloody trail left by Ukrainian gunner Savchenko, she may well face other charges,” a pro-Kremlin newspaper wrote. “Shoot this bitch like a dog,” a vulgar pro-Russian tweeted.
But outside of Russia, Savchenko’s popularity skyrocketed. “Nadiya Savchenko is a symbol of struggle for Ukraine. While in captivity, she demonstrated [the] true, strong, martial Ukrainian spirit of a serviceman who doesn’t betray [the] Motherland,” said Ukrainian president Petro Poroshenko. Since Savchenko’s capture, she was elected to the both the Ukrainian parliament and the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe. Russia refused to recognize the diplomatic immunity granted by the latter appointment. Later, Savchenko was recognized as a “Hero of Ukraine,” the country’s most prestigious award, roughly analogous to America’s Presidential Medal of Freedom. In an article covering her trial, British newspaper The Economist even went so far as to wonder if she could rally Ukraine’s people against the nation’s corrupt government.
American Secretary of State John Kerry echoed the international community’s response:
In the 20 months since she was captured in eastern Ukraine and taken to Russia, Ms. Savchenko has reportedly endured interrogations, solitary confinement, and forced ‘psychiatric evaluation.’ Her trial and continuing imprisonment demonstrate disregard for international standards, as well as for Russia’s commitments under the Minsk agreements.
The United States once again calls on Russia to immediately release Ms. Savchenko and return her to Ukraine.
Not to say anything bad about Kerry’s words, but Savchenko’s added vitriol is far more satisfying to read. In addition, Savchenko has turned her unfair imprisonment into an enormous opportunity, attracting attention to the ongoing conflict in Ukraine after it became old news. Many Western media outlets have strongly hinted that there is something off about Russia’s actions in Ukraine, as well as its human-rights record in general. Many Western governments have more explicitly said the same thing.
However, the feeling I got when I read the full text of Savchenko’s speech was that she says it like it is.
First, I’m ashamed to draw a connection between Donald Trump and Nadiya Savchenko. Second, there is a parallel and it can illuminate a great deal. Many racist xenophobes support Donald Trump, who has rhetorically given a number of non-white groups the finger. If Savchenko can say it like it is to Ukraine (and if a lot of Western media is to be believed, she’s right), then her burgeoning popularity is likely due to the same rhetorical strategy that has made Donald Trump a serious contender for the American presidency: saying what an aggrieved group wants to say, but can’t make publically known.
While remaining civil and avoiding polarization is important for bipartisan cooperation, there is a wonderful feeling to hearing someone say it like it is—if we believe it to be true. Surely the dangers of the phenomenon are great, as they reek of the technique of demagogues. Rhetoric as fiery as Savchenko’s or as xenophobic as Trump’s turns off anyone who initially disagrees. Its power derives from existing prejudices and offense, less so ideas and clear argument. So it limits debate, giving preference to what is little more than a shouting match or presidential debates about the length of candidates’ penises.
However, such rhetoric is much more enjoyable. There is always the immature hope that the whole thing will devolve into a fistfight. Political cartoons sometimes depict politicians as boxers in a ring to make their point. Canadian politician Justin Trudeau has actually played to this, engaging a conservative politician and karate black belt in a boxing match in 2012. Trudeau won both the boxing match, and later, the position of prime minister.
Despite her years of military experience, it is doubtful that Nadiya Savchenko would stand much of a chance against Vladimir Putin, who was a top-ranked judo champion in Russia. Thrilling as it might be to see them duke it out, Savchenko need not use force. When spoken by someone who is passionate and fearless, words have power—especially when you can say it like it is without being too offensive, as Savchenko did during her rousing speech at her trial:
As a politician, I will not shake hands with Russia in the political arena. It is out of hand to shake hands with those who held you in handcuffs and your people in chains. Whenever I make a political decision, I will always think about its effect on the common people, of Ukraine as well as Russia. For in Russia, in spite of everything, there are nevertheless many honest, decent, kind, and unfortunate people.
She said some closing remarks, and then sang Ukraine’s national anthem. Many in the audience joined her.
