Leaderless but Unstoppable: Ukraine’s Networked Maidan Redefines Protest Power

The large-scale protest march for reforms to the management of the country’s crucial defense sector on July 31 in central Kyiv brought together more than 10,000 people and filled the entire length of Khreshchatyk, the capital’s main street – stretching for several kilometers from Bessarabsky Market to Independence Square. The demonstrators, mostly young people but also families with children and some older participants, demand government accountability, reinstatement of dismissed Defense Minister Mykhailo Fedorov to the Cabinet, and the continuation of Fedorov’s military reforms.JOIN US ON TELEGRAMFollow our coverage of the war on the @Kyivpost_official. The protests are intensifying despite relentless attempts by the authorities to discredit them. Any social media post featuring photos from central Kyiv immediately attract hundreds of abusive comments from apparently fake accounts. These bots accuse the protesters of everything imaginable: working for the enemy, “rocking the boat” during wartime, and even demanding that all demonstrators be sent to the front. None of this is working and the protests are not shrinking. On the contrary, the flood of anti-protest comments are only increasing the visibility of every post on the subject, fueling the protesters’ passions even more. In a similar vein to last year’s protests against the dismantling of the independence of anti-corruption institutions – the movement is apolitical. There are no symbols of political parties at the demonstrations, and most politicians prefer to keep their distance from the Maidan. Other Topics of Interest Ukraine Downs Only 1 Ballistic Missile During Massive Attack on Kyiv A shortage of Patriot interceptors allowed 26 Russian ballistic missiles to strike Ukraine early Saturday morning, killing nine in Kyiv. Even those sympathetic to the protests and actively participating in them – anti-corruption civil society organizations, which have long functioned as de facto political actors, as well as members of parliament such as Maryana Bezuhla and Yaroslav Zhelezniak – have made no attempt to assume a leadership participation as part of the rallies. Likewise, past protest coordinators, such as Zinaida Averina last year and veteran Dmytro Kozyatynskyi this year, have consistently emphasized that they serve as organizers rather than true leaders. Meanwhile, Fedorov himself has also stayed away from the protests, although he has previously thanked people for their support. For two weeks, a country at war has witnessed large-scale demonstrations without a core leading voice and without a clearly defined ideological or political program, How can an apolitical and seemingly leaderless protest continue? Clearly, Ukraine is experiencing a new form of protest coordinated almost entirely through social media, where every participant can, almost in real time, observe, discuss, and adjust plans collectively. President Volodymyr Zelensky once said, “Each of us is the president.” Years later, this idea has resurfaced in an entirely different form. At these protests, there is no single center of decision-making. Instead, there are online platforms where thousands of participants communicate in real time, coordinate their actions, express their demands and emotions, and collectively shape both the framework and the agenda of the movement. This is a form of “collective intelligence,” in which mass solidarity and shared frustration, combined with extraordinary communication technologies, make it possible to organize large-scale protests without a single leader or political platform. Moreover, if someone attempted to declare themselves the sole leader in such an environment, it is possible that they would be immediately rejected by this social media generation’s collective. That said, this does not mean such a protest phenomenon can continue indefinitely. Sooner or later, the protesters will inevitably have to crystallize their dissatisfaction into several clear political demands. That will mark the birth of an actual political movement. For now, what most worries those young people who form the core of the protests is the prospect of reforms being halted, the return of the old corrupt elites, and the continuation of unaccountable, highly centralized governance that clearly does not serve the interests of broad segments of society. But demands for reform – which have become personalized in the figure of the reform-minded minister Fedorov – will inevitably require changes in the way the state is governed and a transformation of the political landscape. After all, reforms are implemented not by the street but by those in power, because they possess the necessary instruments. And any demand for a change of government – whether through constitutional means, elections, or any other mechanism – is already political by nature. It inevitably turns the protest into a political struggle. For now, neither Fedorov nor the protest coordinators appear willing to cross that line, fearing that accusations of “destabilization” could evolve from bot-driven propaganda into genuine political charges. Fedorov has even promised not to join the opposition to the president until the end of the war. Yet demands for reform confronted by an elite unwilling to implement change could inevitably force that line to be crossed. It is likely just a question of “when.” Regardless of how long thousands of impassioned citizens continue to find the time and energy to participate in mass protests during wartime, Ukrainian society’s demand for reform and change – a society evolving much faster than the state apparatus of the young Ukrainian state – is not going away. And that means a new phase of political confrontation is almost inevitable. Last year’s protests against the dismantling of the National Anti-Corruption Bureau of Ukraine (NABU) stemmed from exactly the same demand – for reform; and from the same fears that reforms would be rolled back. At that time, the authorities managed to extinguish the flames of a new Maidan by quickly reversing course. This year, the president attempted to partially defuse the situation by dismissing Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces Oleksandr Syrskyi, whose outdated approach to conducting the war had attracted growing criticism. Will that concession be enough to defuse the crisis, or at least delay the politicization of the protests? Time will tell.