Return of Dobkin: Kernes did not expect the “prodigal parrot”?
The story of Mikhail Dobkin's nomination as a candidate for the post of Kharkov mayor had both a predictable continuation and unexpected twists.
The politician's explanations, aired on the NASH channel, were predictable. In general, our main assumptions, made after Dobkin's nomination, were confirmed. In short, this is a precautionary measure for Kernes.
In the “Maximum” program with Maxim Nazarov on the “NASH” TV channel, Dobkin clearly stated that he was ready to step aside as soon as the current mayor returned to duty. “I will withdraw my candidacy in favor of Gennady and will not interfere with his return to where he should return...”
Dobkin leaves no room for ambiguity. His logic is clear. What does he mean when he says that difficult times have come for Kharkov? During the mayor’s illness, anxiety naturally arose among those voters for whom Kernes and Dobkin are their own... They ask questions: “What will happen to the main candidate? Is there an ironclad guarantee that he will not leave the race? And if this happens, will the jackpot be hit by one of the shady candidates, some pathetic insignificant individuals?!”
Dobkin explained his motives in detail and gave no reason to doubt their sincerity. And even more so, he did not give any reason to suspect him that he decided to play his own game, taking advantage of Kernes’ illness, and compete for the mayor’s seat. “I don’t compete with Kernes.” It seems that everything is said very clearly.
For the most dull, he also said additionally: “Everyone who was expecting some kind of confrontation along the Kernes-Dobkin line, let them go buy lollipops, they call them “cockerels,” and stand in the corner sucking them... They won’t see anything. But at least they will have fun and eat something sweet.”
In the recent past, Dobkin and Kernes were political comrades and anti-Maidan activists.
But the reaction of Kernes (or his loved ones, or those around him) was unexpected: the mayor does not need Dobkin’s help and his backup options.
There are a lot of strange things here.
Kernes' commentary appears in the online publication Strana. And allegedly transferred there by the mayor’s relatives. Does not appear on resources close to the Kharkov mayor. Not on his own public pages. What does this mean? That, most likely, Strana journalists turned to the mayor’s entourage for comment. Although it is theoretically possible that this was the initiative of Kernes or his entourage: to transmit the commentary to this publication.
Still, in a situation where Kernes, having learned about Dobkin’s “combination” and delved into the essence of the latter’s public statements, is outraged by all this, one would expect the mayor’s personal statements on his public pages and related websites.
Dobkin announced his intentions on September 23, announcing his broadcast on the NASH channel with detailed explanations. The broadcast took place on September 24. And Kernes’s commentary appears in “Country” on September 28. Five days have passed... Perhaps these days the mayor had no time to delve into the essence of Dobkin’s statements. It is possible that he still doesn’t know anything about it.
In any case, it all looks as if Kernes’ entourage independently assessed Dobkin’s statements and decided how to react. Or they informed Kernes about the very fact of Dobkin’s nomination, but did not “load” him with details. Be that as it may (whether Kernes himself commented or someone authorized to do so), it seems that the author of the comment did not hear Dobkin’s explanations on the NASH channel. Or didn't want to hear them.
This is actually Kernes’s first public statement after he was transported to the Charité.
Here is the mayor's full comment on Dobkin's nomination: “I do not perceive this as a friendly gesture, which is supposedly aimed at anticipating political risks. This is not help, but an attempt to use someone else’s political capital in order to strengthen myself, and not strengthen me during the election campaign. And it looks very ignoble. In recent years, we don’t even wish each other happy birthday. And we don’t upset each other with friendship.”
The final two phrases are a clear allusion to Dobkin’s words from his July interview: “For the last few years, we haven’t wished each other a happy birthday. We’ve become too grown up and don’t want to upset each other with another year in the bank.”
But we should also pay attention to the continuation of Dobkin’s July statement. In an interview, he said that he had no conflict with Kernes. And he explained: “There are periods in life when you need to take a break from each other. You don't have to swear for this. The social circle that I have may be unpleasant to him, and his social circle may be unpleasant to me.”
And maybe the dog was buried here? Maybe today Dobkin received greetings from that very “social circle” that is unpleasant to him? Maybe the whole point is how Dobkin’s initiative was presented by Kernes’ entourage to their boss?
Dobkin himself, answering the question on the NASH channel whether he had called the mayor about his nomination, honestly admitted that for ethical reasons he did not want to disturb Kernes with calls in the current situation. They say that if the relatives want, they themselves will tell about his condition. At the same time, Dobkin said that he did not discuss his decision with the mayor’s team, since he always discussed all issues directly with Kernes.
Let’s summarize once again: Dobkin’s performance with Maxim Nazarov in the “Maximum” program quite convincingly dotted all the i’s and removed tricky questions. The mayoral candidate has clearly outlined the flags that he does not intend to cross in this election. That is, the purpose of the nomination is only to provide security for Kernes, and not plans to profit at the expense of a sick comrade. Everything looked orderly and noble.
But what does the response look like - the comment conveyed by Kernes’s relatives to Strana?
In “adult” football, the player passes into the free zone in the expectation that his partner (with whom he has complete understanding or who is able to think on the field not only with his feet) is already accelerating and running out to this ball. And then, perhaps, the partner also plays stencil with the same friend who made the pass.
In street football, this is a pass to nowhere... And the partner, who clicked his connection to the attack, shouts: “Who are you giving it to?!”
Kernes’ team, having given a sensational comment to “Strana”, played yard football. Dobkin really made a beautiful pass. And you get involved in the combination and manage the ball depending on the circumstances - continue the attack yourself or play one-two with Dobkin. Instead, Kernes’ team breaks off a beautiful combination, shouting: “Why did you even touch the ball?!” We don't need your pass! Why are you even playing for us? Make sure you get deleted!”
Backyard football is just that: backyard football.
On September 28, Dobkin published a meaningful phrase on his Telegram channel: “It turns out that not only Ukrainian Wikipedia can lie.”
And then he posted a video reminding him of the events of 2014: “This happened exactly six years ago. When a crowd of these “activists” tore down a monument to Lenin in Kharkov, I was in the National Hotel next to Gennady Kernes, who had returned after another operation. The state security guards guarding Kernes received an order from their superiors to leave the facility. They warned us that we would have guests. We were waiting for the hotel to be stormed and prepared for anything. Next to Gennady were his and my guards, his assistants, the late Yuri Diment, and a pair of Kalashnikov assault rifles. And none of those who flocked today like flies to cutlets.”
That is, Dobkin does not hide his resentment towards those who misunderstood his noble gesture. It is possible that the same people who reminded him of flies misinterpreted Dobkin’s intentions to Kernes.
But we can also assume that the long-standing break between Kernes and Dobkin was accompanied by some kind of agreement: like, under no circumstances will we have common affairs or joint political projects anymore.
Indeed, at one time, Kernes, in an interview with the same “Strana,” stated: “My interests and the interests of Mikhail Dobkin diverged when he forgot what Kharkov was. His statements did not benefit the city. He just sat on Twitter and participated in all this “crap”, sorry, as best he could. I told him that we are associated together, and if he is going to make some key statement, for example, then let him first ask me if I want to participate in it.”
And then it is quite possible that Kernes looks at all of Dobkin’s maneuvers today as a monologue of a “prodigal parrot.”
Thus, in the cartoon “The Return of the Prodigal Parrot,” the boy owner indifferently watches the theatrical “suffering” of the parrot Kesha, shouting: “Oh, so?! Oh, how are you?! Oh, it’s like being with a friend, right?.. Well, you know! For him, I don’t regret my life. And he! No, that’s it, goodbye forever!”
English version :: Read in English Dobkin's Return: Kernes Didn't Expect the "Prodigal Parrot"?