Ukrainian laws prohibit hate speech in the media. However, the punishment is characterless. As a conclusion, in many aspects Ukrainian laws forbid something, but it looks like wail of conscience. Despite adopting a set of rules on the use of the state language and setting quotas for the use of foreign language content in the media, the Ukrainian information space remains filled with foreign material. This is especially evident in online resources that show the search results or tips in Russian due to using the Cyrillic alphabet.
There is not much Ukrainian material in the media. In the context of the war this material took the form of hate, filled with lexical units of expressive nature. One can say the same about the language of politics and culture. Pop culture naturally imitates this style by responding to the demands of the least independent majority in a dynamic society.
The question of pragmatics arises in this situation. The pragmatic goal of Ukrainian manipulative broadcasting was, until recently, the restoration of information independence and resistance to direct Russian occupation. State policy aimed at shifting the attention of citizens from the experience of the revolution to the experience of war. Revolutionary activity is contrary to the principles of statehood, and the dynamic system of the state is not interested in promoting the idea of civil disobedience. The state apparatus can support the idea of civil disobedience under public pressure, which can become a regulating factor in the formation of state ideology and political behaviour.
The Revolution of Dignity has proved once again (at first glance) the unnecessary of elements court, parliament, police, and forces. However, free territory without a state cannot pull a tent from one border to another while remaining intact. The problem of world revolution in this case seems unrealistic because of the uneven development of societies and groups.
The ideology of the state "system" forms a dictionary of valuation. It gives the characters of the "public" experience with positive and negative traits: "fugitive president", "mercenaries", and "murderers". War always implies an ideological centre. It is a dispute between the elites (in the least emotional sense of the word) that manifests itself in the destruction of manpower. The so-called "manpower" does not belong to the "elite" but only fulfils the orders of the "elite", receiving almost nothing for its work. The vocabulary of such trendy language filled with the lexems: "hero", "defender", "warrior", "bandit", "separatist", "occupier", and "invader". On both sides of the conflict, there is a noticeable tendency to name the opponents. The source of this naming is the appropriately formed units of the state machine.
The state as a process does not exist outside of human individuality, but it has an important ability to form functionaries who inherit from generation to generation the necessary skills and the right vocabulary. Understanding the state as a process allows one to trace its efforts to the formation of ideology, to preserving its state of dependence on other similar forms of governing, and to the suicide of the state, which is inherent in its nature, but never directly expressed. It is difficult to trace the state as a speech for several reasons: a large mass of expressions; the diversity of information noise that deliberately used to disorient recipients; the existence of units of broadcasting from outside of the ideology of a particular state, which form alternative public positions in the interests of other state formations.
The Ukrainian experience of broadcasting based on post-Soviet ideology. It is the rejection of speech elements that are reminiscent of the addiction experience. Today, the current term "decommunisation" does not depict the processes that need to conduct in public. The lexical problem is deeper because it does not concern the existence of communist ideology as such. This activity is not only a counteraction to the former or existing Russian occupation, that is, not “de-Russification”. Rather, it is a resistance to empires, which divided the territory of modern Ukraine, which throughout the process of that society we call Ukrainian (Ruthenian). The question of homogeneity of the "people" remains open, since some fragments of the territories of modern Ukraine do not have the experience of at least one-time stay in one state formation during the whole process of human presence in the territory known to us as Ukraine. "De-imperialisation" as less shameful, or "decolonization" as a more accurate, but somewhat derogatory term, should be used to delineate one aspect of the rejection of modern Ukrainian statehood from previous experience.
The emotional vocabulary used by the representatives of the state speaks directly to the ideological context of the utterances. Vocabulary devoid of emotion is also manipulative. The use of nouns without the tinge of dynamics to designate unstable units of experience seems to be a tool to restrain society and temporarily fix its orientations. The person formed by the current Ukrainian situation is a person without taste and education.
This person thinks independently, but cannot go beyond his/her/their ignorance. The lack of an alternative cultural experience pushes a person into an easier-to-read, easy-to-identify information environment.
It is a person without taste, who distinguishes the style of speech of his environment, does not feel the boundaries of speech. This person's experience filled with stereotypes about the stability of systems (state, family, language, world, man). In such a situation, one cannot rely on the management of public service broadcasting by such a person. The language of "hate", as well as the language of "love", for a person without taste is a very comfortable environment; he/she/they seeks for because it considers as natural.
The third aspect of the Ukrainian person is the desire for regular destruction for the sake of liberation. The process of statehood becomes annoying, alien. This causes resistance, and sometimes indignation, which leads to destruction. This is the exemption from liability imposed by participation in the process of statehood.
Personal responsibility, independent education and a sense of taste in the broadest sense make totalitarian states or single-person dictatorships impossible. The other side is the denial of statehood.