Title: Terrorism in the service of the state
Author: Rev Dia
Date: 11 March 2018
Source: Retrieved on 26th January 2022 from a translation of revdia.org

The story of Ruban, who was detained on March 8 and suspected of plotting terrorist attacks in Kyiv on May 9, is now on everyone’s lips. And moreover, preparations for the assassination of Poroshenko himself. In this case, they have already found a lot of contradictions with the official version of the SBU. Shortly before his arrest, Ruban criticized Poroshenko in an interview for boosting his pre-election image by exchanging prisoners, and he also criticized the current head of the Security Service. The mortars and shells he was carrying in the car turned out to be of various calibers, and in general Ruban was deprived of the right to travel to the occupied territories last year, and that’s not all. There are many more questions in this case than answers. In connection with this event, we wanted to understand once again why the state benefits from terrorists and various social fears.

Terrorism is a relatively new phenomenon in Ukraine. But in Western countries, for our neighbors, terrorist attacks are commonplace. Governments of all countries are vying to express their concerns. Many call terrorism the main problem of the 21st century. Time and time again, all new pacts of anti-terrorist laws are announced. The media is spreading horrible details of bloody terrorist attacks at the speed of light. At first glance, it may seem that the state apparatus is doing everything possible to overcome this horrible phenomenon once and for all. But this is not the case. Terrorism is beneficial to the state as an institution. Due to social unrest, officials can safely tighten the screws. Under the guise of the fight against terrorism, the rights of ordinary citizens can be easily restricted. Public fears of an external threat are a good time to strengthen the state’s repressive apparatus.

Very often, terrorist attacks are not prepared by bearded Islamic terrorists, but by the special services of the states to intimidate the population. For example, consider the terrorist attack in the subway that took place in Minsk in 2011. The event was preceded by a wave of protests over another election victory. On December 19, 2010, Interior Ministry forces dispersed protesters. Many people were injured, many were detained. The people could no longer tolerate the dictator. And they were about to gather strength and give another fight to Lukashenko’s dictatorship. So-called silent protests were organized through social networks, and they took place regularly every Wednesday in the central squares of the country’s main cities. And here there was a terrorist attack in the subway. According to official figures, 15 people died and 203 were injured. After that, a number of fake news about the mines of other metro stations, explosions in many districts of Minsk and mines of buses appeared in the information space. Although the news was fake, they did their job — the population was intimidated. The “terrorists” were quickly found, the “criminals” were two young men, Dmitry Konovalov and Vladislav Kovalev, after their detention, they were very quickly sentenced to death. Their motives remained a mystery. But all evidence of their involvement in the attack did not stand up to criticism. There is a lot of material on the Internet with a full critical analysis of the evidence in the case. The falsification was obvious, and evidence of KGB involvement in the attack began to emerge. But the bloody victim of the dictatorial regime did its job. Lukashenko quickly passed a series of laws that tightened control over the population. And the very mood of protest in society quickly changed to fear of a new unknown threat.

And such examples are not uncommon in world practice, when special services organized terrorist attacks to promote a candidate, to carry out “anti-terrorist laws” or to suppress protests. Activists who actively opposed the regime are often considered terrorists. In Ukraine, too, after the start of the war in Donbass, many populist political parties, including the far right, demanded martial law in the country. Martial law, we recall, gives enormous powers into the hands of officials, leads a curfew and temporarily restricts the rights and freedoms of the people. Then, despite all the efforts of various politicians and the far right, martial law was avoided. But talks about its relevance are still ongoing. It is only necessary to remember what events preceded Ruban’s detention and everything will fall into place at once. More recently, the authorities brutally dispersed peaceful protesters outside the Verkhovna Rada. In our opinion, it is obvious that the case with Ruban was initiated deliberately to distract the public.

Terrorism and other external threats have always been a good tool in the service of the state. Politicians themselves intimidate the population to strengthen their position. Therefore, we once again remind you that the main terrorist is the state!