The Ukrainian National Council of Television and Radio Broadcasting has banned the independent Russian TV channel Dozhd (Rain) from operating in the country, citing both understandable as well as some rather absurd reasons for doing so.

Moscow and Kiev seem determined to take bilateral relations to a new nadir, while the Kremlin has an opportunity to turn the tables on its political foe.

Some in Russia describe TV Rain as oppositionist, while others believe that after a period of intense harassment in 2014 that left it on life-support the channel has learnt to stop getting up the Kremlin’s nose.

Either way, Rain is perhaps the last Russian television channel not to shy away from pro-Ukrainian speakers or to view events exclusively through the eyes of the Kremlin. And this is the channel that the Ukrainian authorities have just decided to remove from the airwaves (it will still be available online).

The ban is partly for showing “incorrect” geographical maps depicting Crimea as part of Russia. The station’s general director, Natalia Sindeeva, gave this explanation: “Rain operates under Russian law, and in accordance with Article 65 of the Constitution of the Russia Federation, the Republic of Crimea is a constituent entity of Russia.” Political scientist Stanislav Belkovsky, who has worked with Rain, developed this thought: “If Rain had not shown Crimea as part of Russia, it would have been shut down immediately by the Russian authorities. What’s more, a criminal case would have been opened against its directors.”

This latest twist in Rain’s fate was heatedly discussed on its journalists’ Facebook pages. For example, presenter Mikhail Kozyrev appealed to fellow journalists who, having moved from Russia to Ukraine, until recently made active use of Rain’s platform, yet are now rushing to endorse Kiev’s decision: “Only war stands to gain from our disappearance. We have tried to preserve a piece of the media landscape with a human face in the hope of one day healing the wounds and restoring cultural, humanitarian and universal ties… But I feel as if hatred has the upper hand and is burning souls, even those of my friends… It is very sad that our small operation, which demonstrates that not all Russians unswervingly support the Kremlin, will no longer be watched in Ukraine.”

Kozyrev received a reply from one of his addressees, Eider Muzhdabaev, former deputy editor of Moskovsky Komsomolets, who moved to live and work in Ukraine: “If your mother is being raped before your very eyes, you don’t make peace with the abuser. This is a cowardly and immoral decision. Rapists should be wiped out. There’s no place for sentimentality. But you live with this abuser and its laws. Even if you disapprove, you can’t do anything. What’s more, you obey it because you have no choice. Well, we, too, have no choice. Period.”

It should be said that the Russian liberal public, which has tried patiently (and otherwise) to explain to Ukraine the value of Rain, has struggled to comprehend that many Ukrainians simply want to forget about Russia in all its manifestations.

One well-wisher who recommended Rain to Ukraine is the political editor of Novaya Gazeta, Kirill Martynov: “From an objective standpoint, Rain’s existence is beneficial to Ukraine, as is the existence of all Russian adherents of peaceful coexistence and respect for international agreements between the two countries. What we need right now are Russian-Ukrainian cultural and educational projects.”

Ukrainian journalist Ivan Yakovin, however, believes that it would be better to part company, at least for the time being: “For me, the decision to ban Rain in Ukraine was absolutely right, because the less of Russian-Ukrainian relations there are right now, the better. In order to start thinking about restoring ties, we first need to move as far away from each other as possible.”

There is a more Ukraine-centric position. “Ukraine needs Rain not for the sake of Russia, Russians, freedom, democracy or rights (although they are important). Ukraine needs Rain for the sake of Ukraine,” writes freelance photographer Yevgeny Feldman on Facebook.

Kiev resident Valerya Pozinenko strongly disagrees with this interpretation: “Why the hell should we watch Russian channels? Who needs your news? Just leave us alone, forget all about us.”

Another Rain journalist, the historian and political scientist Sergei Medvedev, also attempted to fathom Ukraine’s decision and even partially justify it: “The next generation in Ukraine will see Russia as both a near neighbour and an enemy occupier; it will be a generation that does not distinguish between good and bad Russians, like some Irish don’t distinguish between good and bad English people. We dug this hole ourselves and now look at it in surprise. Even if it wasn’t us personally, it was our government, for which we are entirely responsible and whose laws we live by. Ukraine has taught us a lesson: we are all culpable and must bear collective responsibility.”

It goes without saying that not all Ukrainians are rejoicing at the ban. The Facebook page of Rain’s general director, for instance, features the following and other similar comments. Svetlana Chaykovskaya: “I support the channel. At least it told us something about Russia and never waged a propaganda war against Ukraine”; Vitaly Voronov: “Natalia, we watch your channel in Ukraine online. We are with you!!! Thank you for the New Year subscription prices. You’re the best!”

The Russian authorities’ reaction to the ban is curious. Putin’s spokesman, Dmitry Peskov, was as laconic as ever: “Ukraine’s destructive line is continuing.” Duma Speaker Vyacheslav Volodin, describing the incident as a violation of freedom of speech, said: “They seem to have mental problems.” Maria Zakharova, official spokesperson of the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs, promised to take the matter to the OSCE. “The very people who hounded Rain and forced it off the cable networks are now sticking up for it,” noted Sobesednik, highlighting not so much the irony as the cognitive dissonance.

The whole of Russia is to blame for everything, so separating the hawks from the doves is a waste of time. That’s the essence of Kiev’s position. Ukrainians disregard even those in Russia opposed to the Kremlin’s policy on Crimea and the Donbas, and are reluctant to side with Rain, which is seen as an arm of the Russian liberal community. The end result is a new circle of mistrust and mutual recriminations.