For a few days, an operation of the Security Service of Ukraine on preventing the assassination of a Russian opositionary journalist Arkady Babchenko in Kyiv remains one of the most discssed topics not only in Ukraine and among interested people abroad, but also triggered contradictive opinions. But first of all, the staged murder of Babchenko has put forward an important ethical issue before the citizens. It is about the possibility of placing the state interests (including actual fight against terrorism) above certain abstract things, such as providing full acces to information for journalists. The assasination staging was needed to caught an initiator red-handed in the moment of transferring money to a killer. At the same time, it was literally a matter of life and death to disinform journalists, so that the initiator was sure that everything had happened succesfully.

The situation is fairly simple in reality, however, it showed how far some international organizations (especially those of left-wing tending human rights organizations) are detached from real life. After the news on the murder appeared, they started to condemn the security services, claiming that chaos prevails in the country, recalling unsolved resonant crimes against journalists. What's more, the head of Ukrainian branch of Anmesty International in her article even managed to put in one row such different cases as the murder of Ukrainian journalist of Belarusian origin Pavel Sheremet with Oles Buzina - an anti-Ukrainian publicist, the "Russian Block" party leader, who had been openly involved in Russia's hybrid war against Ukraine on media front. On the second day, when it turned out that the situation is under total control by the security forces, and the staged murder was a part of a special operation - we whitnessed a new storm of criticism from members of some inernational organisations; the "specialists" claim that everything is allegedly wrong, and it turns out that a security service cannot disinform media while a secret operation is ongoing, even when it aimed at saving a journalist's life.

As a result, we see only a constant and often groundless critical attitude towards Ukraine: on the first day Ukraine had been enlighted in a bad light because a journalist was killed there, on the second day - because local security services revealed details of a secret operation after its end, not earlier... hello common sense. Sometimes it seems that the whole policy of a number of human rights international organizations is permeated with unconstructivism - let us recall the statement of Amnesty International, in which they criticized the sanctions imposed by Ukraine's police against persons, who openly wear a so-called Georgy's ribbon or an USSR symbols, which are forbidden by the law, not to mention these symbold have been put on the flag of the Russian hybrid invasion. Although for some reason the organization has never stood up for any other prohibited symbols apart from the communist ones.

All these leftist critics are literally radiating destructiveness and autism, detachment from real life. They come out to the heart of Kyiv - a capital of a belligerent country - with banners "death to the nation - queer to the enemies," storming facebook with claims against the opponents of extreme feminism, demand police to "find and punish," then tell stories about the SBU "secret detention facilities," or  criticize them for cases like one, we are touching upon in this article, or other things that aren't really worrying an ordinary person who wakes up five days at week at 8am and go working to a plant, an office, a hospital, etc, not to a "free space" of an international grant funded LGBT-rights defending organisation.

Let's back to real life.