After an almost three-year pause, street protests have returned to Ukraine. They have returned despite the war, air raid sirens, the monopolization of power, and what would seem to be total political apathy. This time, the trigger was a law changing the subordination of the NABU (National Anti-Corruption Bureau of Ukraine). However, if we look deeper, this vivid, albeit isolated, outbreak is only the culmination of a long-standing process of monopolization of power, fatigue, and a sense of absolute impunity among those in power.


1. July: the month when something broke.
At the beginning of July, it seemed that the country was living in its usual “war marathon” mode, with the authorities allowing themselves to do whatever they wanted in “turbo mode.” President Zelenskyy, as in previous months, made statements that the war would continue, but we would not break. The country got a new Cabinet of Ministers, the Verkhovna Rada voted in a controlled manner, and the front remained unchanged. 
Then everything changed.
A couple of days before the vote in the Verkhovna Rada (Parliament), the authorities tried to discredit NABU with information, then on July 22, in a "blitzkrieg" the law was voted on and quickly signed by the President. This law, despite the camouflage of technicality, actually changed the balance of power in the anti-corruption system and gave the Bankova (Office of the President) leverage over NABU – a body that is conditionally not yet fully under its control. 
Protests began. At first, there were a few dozen young activists near the Franko Theater in Kyiv (not far from the President's Office). Later, students, human rights activists, and journalists joined the activists. Within a few days, the protest grew to several thousand people and spread to other cities. These were not as massive as the Maidan protests during the Ukrainian revolutions, but they were something completely new in an atmosphere of total monopoly of power, and certainly completely unexpected for everyone.


2. Illegal change of government.
Against the backdrop of the scandalous law on NABU, a more significant event was seemingly lost, which theoretically should have caused, if not a large-scale scandal, then at least a public outcry, but was met with silent consent from society. We are talking about the change of government and the prime minister, who, incidentally, held his position for the longest time in Ukrainian history.
On July 16, in direct violation of the “Law on the Legal Regime of Martial Law,” which prohibits a change of government during martial law, the Verkhovna Rada accepted the resignation of Prime Minister Denys Shmyhal and approved a new Prime Minister, Yulia Svyrydenko. Almost half of the Cabinet was replaced. Formally, it is a "personnel renewal", in fact, it is a political "blitzkrieg". In order to avoid holding elections, the authorities constantly refer to the “Law on the Legal Regime of Martial Law,” but no one here showed any interest in the legal grounds. Everything was attributed to “military necessity.”


3. The law on multiple citizenship.
Another example of the omnipotence of the authorities, despite the current laws and the Constitution, was the “Law on Multiple Citizenship”. It was voted on by the Verkhovna Rada back in June, and it was signed by President Zelensky on July 15. The law introduces the possibility of having more than one citizenship – despite the direct norm of the Constitution of Ukraine (Article 4): “There is a single citizenship in Ukraine”.
The explanations were noble: to help the diaspora and attract foreign Ukrainians. And in fact, thousands of Ukrainians, after being forced to emigrate due to Russian aggression, are already prepared to take citizenship in other countries. It is obvious that the Ukrainian state does not benefit from a mass exodus from Ukrainian citizenship. Plus, global trends are increasingly encouraging many people to identify with multiple identities. But such a blatant violation of the Constitution showed that the government, which has become de facto “lifetime” as a result of the war, is not even trying to create the appearance of compliance with the law, and society seems to have neither the desire nor the ability to put pressure on the government.


4. Washington's influence.
It is noteworthy that the personnel changes in July coincided with a certain foreign policy vector. It was Yulia Svyrydenko, the new prime minister, while still in the position of deputy prime minister, who signed an ambiguous memorandum with the US on “access to critical minerals.” The document provides for priority access for American channels to Ukrainian resources on terms that many experts have called neocolonial.
Another key appointment was the departure of Rustem Umerov from the post of defense minister and his promotion to the post of secretary of the National Security and Defense Council (NSDC), a body that during the war is effectively the strategic governing body of the state. It was Umerov who led and continues to lead the Ukrainian delegation at the negotiations in Istanbul, which, according to available information, were initiated by the US and are disadvantageous for Ukraine, but have, unfortunately, effectively legitimized the Russian dictator in the eyes of the international community.
In both cases (Svyridenko and Umerov) we see politicians who are convenient for the new American administration of Donald Trump. Therefore, we can assume that such personnel rotations are not only internal intrigues within the Ukrainian government, but also a step towards the new American administration.


5. NABU as a bargaining chip.
Why did the authorities enter into conflict with NABU, understanding that the creation of this body was initiated by international partners and, accordingly, it has the support of Ukrainian allies?
On the surface, it appears that the Ukrainian government is gravitating toward increasing monopolism. And the longer there are no elections (and there may not be any for years, or even decades), the more monolithic this monopoly will become. The process of taking control of all possible state structures has been going on for a long time, and sooner or later it would have come to NABU. But why now? Opponents of the current government have spread information in the media and on social networks that NABU allegedly has recordings known as the “Mindich tapes,” which supposedly contain conversations that compromise Volodymyr Zelenskyy personally. However, no one has provided any recordings, so this information may turn out to be either true or a dirty and brutal special operation. At the same time, there is indirect evidence that it was precisely some activity on the part of NABU that caused such categorical rejection by the ruling party. For example, one of the deputies from the Servant of the People party, Vasyl Virastyuk, carelessly said in response to a question about why he personally voted for the controversial bill: “They did not fully do what needed to be done. They collected information on who was needed and who was not needed.”
Not the main version – again foreign policy. For years, NABU had the image of a structure that was supposedly focused on cooperation with representatives of the US Democratic Party, or with those in Ukraine who had ties to this party. Under the Biden administration, the bureau enjoyed direct support from the State Department, and it was it that “handled” sensitive cases involving high-ranking Ukrainian officials. After Trump returned to power, the Office of the President could quite possibly have hoped that the “cleansing” of NABU would be perceived as a welcome renewal and would be tolerated by the White House.


6. Society is silent. Not this time, though.
What has become commonplace in Ukraine after a full-scale invasion is the reaction of society. Or rather, its absence. Monopolization of power, refusal of elections for an indefinite period – silence. Change of Government in violation of the law – silence. Law on multiple citizenship in violation of the Constitution – silence. Until the law on NABU came.
And it was here that something snapped. It was this law, oddly enough, that became the trigger for street protests, the so-called “cardboard Maidan”. Surprisingly, for some young people, NABU has become a symbol. For some, it is a guarantee of control over corrupt officials, for others, it is the remnants of the West in Ukrainian governance. A strange “red line”, but, as it turned out, it is still a “red line”. 


7. What's next? 
July showed that Ukraine is already different. Outwardly, it is at war with the Russian enemy, but it turns out that internally it is not as toothless as some thought. It is tired, but not indifferent. Yes, the protest is still weak. Yes, the reason is more tactical than strategic. Yes, society as a whole is not yet ready for a more global demand for the return of democratic practices and procedures, and therefore elections.
Nevertheless, the authorities, who believed that they were in power for life and that they could do anything, have reason to reflect.