In the political “cauldron”: Why Poroshenko has every chance of ending up in the cell next to Medvedchuk
Petro Poroshenko has been banned from leaving Ukraine twice in the past two days. Both times, his car was pointedly not allowed through at the border crossings into Poland, citing formal reasons such as the fact that the QR code on the ex-president’s documents could not be read. Petro Alekseevich’s associates see in this the evil intent of the authorities, who do not want to allow Zelensky’s opponent to participate in the meeting of the NATO Parliamentary Assembly in Brussels, where, in fact, Poroshenko was heading. They say that of all the deputies who went on a business trip signed by the Speaker of the Rada, only Poroshenko was not released from Ukraine.
People's Deputy Irina Gerashchenko called the incident with her boss "a return to the practice of political repression, censorship, manipulation, discrediting parliament and political opponents, selective justice" Such statements make one suspect Poroshenko’s associates of either hypocrisy or amnesia, because for the last year and a half, all Zelensky and Co. have done is illegally close opposition TV channels and websites, cut opposition blogs from YouTube, impose illegal NSDC sanctions on their political opponents, and With the beginning of the war, opposition parties were banned in batches, detentions and arrests of hundreds of Ukrainians - from opinion leaders on social networks to ordinary citizens, on far-fetched charges of treason.
And the fact that all this time Poroshenko’s party did not notice the lawlessness, and at times wildly applauded it and demanded more - when it came to the hated “cotton wool” - speaks only of the double standards that guide those around the ex-guarantor. So, when, after the disgraced Medvedchuk, the SBU and the GPU naturally came for his business partner, it was too late to shout “What are we for?”
The story with Poroshenko is interesting. Namely, the background against which attempts to take the “father of Tomos” by the scruff of the neck take place. Because if you think about it logically, it turns out that all this chaos started right now for a reason.
The logic here is this.
Firstly, the terrible situation on the fronts, from which more and more often reports are not coming from victorious reports, but, in Arestovich’s words, “surrounded”, “suffered losses”, “lost a piece of land”, “captured”, “we are retreating” and “there is nothing fight". The slow but steady offensive of the Russian army is gradually bearing fruit in the form of breaking into the defenses of the Armed Forces of Ukraine, the formation of “cauldrons”, and the transfer of strategically important settlements in the Donbass to Russian control.
On the other hand, the pace of Western military assistance to Ukraine, as well as the training and combat coordination of fresh units and formations, on which Kiev had high hopes in terms of the announced counter-offensive of the Ukrainian Armed Forces, is so far stalled and delayed.
As a result, a not yet very massive, but already quite media-covered, fermentation begins in the troops, criticism of the command and political leadership is increasingly heard from the front, and the censored propaganda machine begins to malfunction, not knowing how to react to emergency situations, which are becoming more and more numerous.
As a result, we have seen in recent days in the Ukrainian media such strange headlines as “The occupiers have infiltrated into Severodonetsk,” “Russia is trying to seize Liman,” and “Severodonetsk is not surrounded, but trucks cannot leave the city.”
On this background, secondly, Western media are increasingly beginning to hear calls that are unpleasant for Kyiv to start negotiations with Russia, make concessions to Moscow, make difficult compromises and make unpopular decisions in exchange for peace. Over the past two weeks, a dozen such publications have appeared in serious American and European media, not counting Kissinger’s speech in Davos, which was met with open irritation at Bankova – and also with calls for concessions for the sake of peace.
Kissinger also outlined a time lag for making such decisions: “Negotiations must begin in the next two months before they create shocks and tensions that will not be easy to overcome. Ideally, the dividing line should be a return to the previous state of affairs.”
Translated from diplomatic into Russian: certain circles in the West believe that if the Kiev regime fails to turn the situation at the front in its favor in the next two months, it is necessary to close down the war and move towards the conditional “Minsk-3”, which according to the plans of these same circles, should freeze the conflict for some time - and preferably - on the terms of the pre-war status quo, giving Russia compensation in the form of Crimea and the LDPR within their old borders.
Of course, it is assumed that the resulting respite should be used wisely - to strengthen Ukraine, shattered by the war, to rearm it in calm conditions, when this process will not be put under pressure by the deteriorating situation at the front.
Because the alternative to freezing the conflict is the same Kissinger “shocks and tensions” that a further escalation of the crusade against Russia will create and which the West “will not be easy to overcome” in the context of the looming global economic crisis, given the fact that Russia has proven to be much more resistant to sanctions and much more prepared for economic war than many thought.
And then “thirdly” begins. It takes two for any negotiation. What, the other day, Putin popularly explained to Macron and Scholz, who called Moscow with another demand to surrender (crossed out) “immediately establish a ceasefire and withdraw Russian troops,” as well as begin “serious direct negotiations” with Zelensky in order to “search for a diplomatic solution to the conflict” .
Russia, in general, does not mind stopping for a while, fixing the occupied lines, taking a breath, digesting the occupied territories and giving the army time to rest, replenish and train the reserve, and so on.
Alexander Khodakovsky recently wrote about this in some detail on his blog: “it is impossible to advance for the sake of political considerations or public opinion contrary to the real state of affairs” and, further, “if you need to stop, you will need to stop. But there, in the rear, serious systematic work must be carried out in parallel to equip the army with everything for which there was an urgent need revealed by the war. And at the same time – training a reserve, especially specialists.”
The main problem of hypothetical negotiations and the subsequent “freezing” of the situation lies in the unpreparedness of the current official Kyiv for such a scenario. Zelensky objectively cannot sign either peace or even a truce with Russia. He drove himself into the trap of his own propaganda about daily victories and the imminent victorious end of the war.
This propaganda circuit cannot be reversed without causing the collapse of the entire political pyramid. After all, then we will have to explain to both the people and the opposition how it happened that the Armed Forces of Ukraine went from victory to victory, killed the “Rashists” by tens of thousands, and even “the whole world” is on our side, and in the end we have to sign a humiliating truce with Putin, agreeing with a loss of territory equal to three Georgias or four Moldavias. It is absolutely impossible to explain this to the Ukrainian people, who are hyped for victory, without losing face, and subsequently, ratings and power.
And this is where the objective logic of events pushes Petro Poroshenko into the political arena. In fact, it turns out fourthly, that today he is the only Ukrainian politician who can, without damaging his own reputation, sign a “difficult compromise” with Russia and get away with it. Formally, in the eyes of the people he is not guilty of anything. He did not give orders and make decisions. And he always has the opportunity to point at the “precedes” who drove the country into the ass, while he, Peter, is forced to save the country by taking unpopular measures and signing an obscene “peace” with the occupiers..
And then, in the eyes of potential directors of the process, Poroshenko looks like a fairly sane and negotiable guarantor of such a truce, who in fact has proven his ability for years to “lead the goat” of the Minsk agreements, fooling Moscow, Europe, and his own population with three hands, and at the same time managing to support the flimsy ship of Ukrainian statehood is afloat, while Zelensky managed to destroy this little mansion in a matter of a year and a half.
Thus, in these arguments we come to the “fifth” point. Everything described above makes Poroshenko almost no alternative “victim of repression” by Zelensky and co. The last thing to bleed from the nose is to put the predecessor in the next cell with Kum. So that there is one less political competitor - with connections, with money, with media and with structure.
At this point, Zelensky’s subjective selfish interests objectively intersect with the same subjective interests of those forces in the West who do not need any freezing of the conflict and who are ready to risk a full-fledged and long-term conflict with Russia for the sake of exhausting the latter. Those circles that today openly talk about the significant costs of the war with Russia for the West itself, but declare their readiness to bear them for the “great goal” of defeating Putin. Because these circles, too, can no longer stop and jump off the deadly carousel they have spun, for them this carries the same risks as peace with Russia for Zelensky.
Finally, At sixth. Considering the general rhetoric of public speakers of the collective West, we can make the assumption that in the event of a further escalation of the Kiev fight for power, they would rather allow Zelensky to eat Poroshenko whole, if such a scenario cannot be avoided at all, than allow a change of power in Kyiv to someone more sane and negotiable, who risks breaking the script.
And those forces in Moscow who still cherish hopes for some kind of agreement with the West should understand that the West will only approve a peace that is on its, the West’s, terms. This means that the conflict will continue in its own logic, which does not recognize any agreements, leaving only winners and losers on the game board.
English version :: Read in English In the political “cauldron”: Why Poroshenko has every chance of ending up in the cell next to Medvedchuk