Washington Seeks to Manage Zelensky’s Removal

“The greater the gap between self perception and reality, the more aggression is unleashed on those who point out the discrepancy.”

“A leader is a dealer in hope.”

Napoleon Bonaparte

“It is the natural tendency of the ignorant to believe what is not true. In order to overcome that tendency it is not sufficient to exhibit the true; it is also necessary to expose and denounce the false. To admit that the false has any standing in court, that it ought to be handled gently because millions of morons cherish it and thousands of quacks make their livings propagating it—to admit this, as the more fatuous of the reconcilers of science and religion inevitably do, is to abandon a just cause to its enemies, cravenly and without excuse.”

H.L. Mencken

A big part – perhaps the biggest part – of remote-managing another country through a suborned leader is thinking several steps ahead to where that leader (a) will have crashed and burned; (b) can no longer carry on in your service due to diminishing returns, or; (c) decides for himself that he really is all that, like you say he is, and decides to strike out on his own without your sponsorship. Having successfully engineered the installation of your man in the driver’s seat, or – as happened with Zelensky – bowing to the inevitable when your own man is revealed to be a gold-plated turd, and instead working on capturing the new guy and making him your own, the very next thing that must occupy your thoughts is his successor. Having seized the country’s destiny and bent it to your own ends, you must continue to exercise control through future leaders, to forestall influence from outside interests which do not coincide with your own, or even – God help us – independence.

In the provocative “Zelensky’s Fight After the War”, Foreign Affairs magazine appears to give voice to the thoughts of the Beltway planners and schemers to a day when Zelensky will no longer be running the show. It also appears to do this from an imaginary state of Ukrainian victory – which would suggest it is not worth pursuing further – but let’s try to be objective and stick with it for now.

“Russia’s war against Ukraine has transformed Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky’s image. Before Russia launched its full-scale invasion on February 24, 2022, many regarded him as an untested figure whose former career as an actor and comedian did not inspire much confidence. After it began, however, he became—in former U.S. President George W. Bush’s judgment—“the Winston Churchill of our time.”

I think you’ll agree with me that’s very modest of the authors, to attribute to Russian action what was entirely the work of western image-management through media control; the characterization of Zelensky as the living embodiment of Churchillian principle was and remains an exercise in fiction. As was the shaping of Churchill as a military genius, really, which he certainly was not, although the real Churchill would have been as likely to pomade his hair with strawberry jam as he would be to throw succeeding formations of desperate and ill-equipped soldiers against Wagnerian forces in Bakhmut. Something Zelensky’s generals advised against, although that has been quietly expunged from memory in favour of stories that they were all ‘united in their resolve’, and even western think-tankers expressed alarm at the grim cost of holding on. No worries, though; the perception was adroitly refocused to where Russia was ‘obsessed’ with taking it, and Zelensky stubbornly insisted it was still anybody’s ball game long after Russia had taken all but a couple of streets of the town. Water under the bridge, now.

The article goes on to propose that the responsibilities of a leader in peacetime are far different to those of the wartime leader…and to infer that confidence of the electorate in Zelensky as the man to manage the peace is not at all certain.

“Notably, Ukrainians are less confident in Zelensky’s leadership when they are asked to consider the future. In the same July 2022 poll, 55 percent identified Zelensky as the best person to lead the country’s postwar reconstruction, and the share saying there was no difference between him and the alternatives or that refused to answer was 28 percent. To overcome these potential misgivings, Zelensky will have to rebuild and fortify not only Ukraine’s cities and infrastructure but also its democracy. He will have to end the country’s tendency to shape government around personal patronage networks, which are prone to corruption, and craft an inclusive conception of patriotism. He will also need to respect the rules and the spirit of the Ukrainian constitution. Zelensky’s ability to meet these challenges will determine his country’s fate and the future of its democracy.”

Ummm…what is Zelensky going to use to rebuild Ukraine’s cities and infrastructure? Because, you know, the population upon which the tax base is…well, based…has shrunk a considerable amount. According to Statista, more than 8 million Ukrainians have fled to Europe, with about 3 million of those going to Russia.

Trading Economics paints a grimmer picture; the population gradually but steadily declined from the moment Ukraine achieved its independence from the Soviet Union, as we have frequently discussed. Then there was the abrupt drop in 2014, when Crimea vanished from the Ukrainian map. For some reason I am unable to account for, the nation’s population leaped by almost 3 million souls in 2020 – perhaps they did a census, and discovered 3 million Ukrainians living in a heretofore-unknown salt cavern, or the Keebler elves were knitting them during the night hours. But the State Statistics Service of Ukraine says that’s what happened, so we have little choice but to go with it. The anomaly did not have to be pondered for long, though, as all those people plus a few more abruptly departed the following year, bringing them back down to 41 million from a pre-Euromaidan 45.25 million. And now, nobody at the State Statistics Service of Ukraine officially has a clue. There’s a little grey box above 2022 which equates to about 38 million, but they apparently chose a  ‘don’t have a clue’ colour because it is just not possible to say with any degree of certainty. That’s kind of the nature of a situation where refugees flee – they often don’t bother to write to say they’re going, and in even more precise circumstances, such as when government operatives are monitoring known exit points to nab men who look strong enough to carry a rifle, they don’t say when or how they’re going.

Interestingly, it does not appear the west is satisfied the modern Churchill managed to “end the country’s tendency to shape government around personal patronage networks” before putting the country on a war footing, which is kind of disappointing considering the lying leaders of France and Germany gave him a couple of years breathing space to do it, by pretending they were trying to implement the Minsk Accords when they were really building up the Ukrainian Army. A deception aided by the modern Churchill’s own campaign promises to end the war via the ‘Steinmeier Formula’. Activists and combat veterans opposed a peace deal without Ukraine getting everything it wanted (or everything it was told to want), but the great majority of those who voted for Volodymyr Zelensky did so in the hope that he would make peace with Russia.

Incidentally, I wouldn’t worry too much about Zelensky’s alleged imperative to obey the Ukrainian Constitution: his western handlers are probably concerned that he follow direction to not yield any portion of Ukrainian land, but they had no difficulty at all with the part in Article 17 which prohibits the use of the Ukrainian Armed Forces against Ukrainian civilians. Zelensky expressly acknowledged that people of the eastern regions are – or were – Ukrainians in 2019, after being confirmed to his office.

“We must reach all the inhabitants of the East and the occupied territories and tell them: “Guys, you have been brainwashed, you are part of Ukraine, we are waiting for you, you are Ukrainians.” And he has added, “We have to start paying their pensions.”

Anyway, let’s not get sidetracked: the points I wanted to make there are that (a) Zelensky, or his successor, is going to have to rely more or less exclusively on continued ‘loans’ or gifts from western benefactors to rebuild any part of Ukraine, because the tax base has evaporated and, even before that happened there was no money in Europe’s poorest country for ambitious infrastructure projects. I should not have to mention that in order for the money to keep flowing under whatever circumstances the west dreams up, Ukraine must win; a Ukraine which loses to Russia will be abandoned to its own devices with the expectation that the victor will fix it. And (b), Zelensky does not give a fuck about the Constitution of Ukraine, and his handlers do not make him, except in unusual circumstances like when he wanted to make a peace deal earlier on, and the west claimed he could not do it without a Constitutional amendment or a referendum, which could not be conducted in wartime. Yes, they actually did say that. Let’s move on.

Now, see here, further down, the authors say the Russian invasion strengthened Ukraine’s commitment to democracy. But they just got through saying Zelensky would have to stop using patronage networks to leverage his presidential power – is that democratic? You know what? Forget I asked.

“It is possible that the sense of unity the war sparked may dissipate when it ends. Of course, the Ukrainian government could replace it with a new sense of national purpose provided by Ukraine’s application to join the EU, which will give new impetus to much-needed reforms. But these reforms could generate enough opposition to drive the country back toward patronalism. EU membership, for example, will require a major adjustment for Ukraine’s businesses, for they will have to become aligned with EU regulations. It will also oblige Kyiv to take steps to eliminate corruption, necessitating extensive reforms of the Ukrainian judicial system. These reforms will put pressure on both ordinary citizens and elites, challenging the latter’s vested interests. Opposition from ordinary people whose businesses will be affected, and from elites whose interests will be threatened, is likely. Thus, the dangers of a return to patronal politics as usual are real. It cannot be guaranteed that the democratic gains the country has made will be sustained. It is possible, although not highly probable, that Ukraine may shift from the patronal democracy it has typically been in recent years—in which a significant amount of corruption has been leavened by a general commitment to democratic transfers of power when incumbents lose elections—to a more authoritarian or centralized system.”

And there we are, folks; there’s the real apprehension, the real fear – that Zelensky will not survive the war, or if he does, that the almost-incomprehensible cost of it will make him a political leper who will be voted out at the first opportunity. I guess I don’t need to say that Ukraine must win for that to be even a consideration; if it loses (and it’s going to), having a Zelensky to lead around by a ring in his nose is going to be the very least of NATO’s worries. The west – led, as always, by Washington – is first making its plans contingent on some miracle Ukrainian victory, and in that event is concerned that whoever succeeds Zelensky is another western toady who will ‘keep Ukraine on the road to freedom and democracy’. In order for the western plan to work, (1) Ukraine must win. (2) Zelensky must step aside and (3) allow his successor to be appointed by the west. In spite of the amazing progress made by the modern Churchill, the Beltway just does not trust that a victorious Zelensky would not continue to rule by patronalism, and stay for so long as he could keep winning elections.

“Nothing limits intelligence more than ignorance; nothing fosters ignorance more than one’s own opinions; nothing strengthens opinions more than refusing to look at reality.”

Sheri S. Tepper, from ‘The Visitor’