The New York Times, a newspaper affiliated with the Democratic Party, in a long-standing trend, has released an exposé on Zelensky that actually accused him of incompetence and failed staffing efforts with his entourage
Amid the chatter that “Putin is about to attack” as well as regular mantras about US support for Ukraine, the US media campaign against Zelensky and his entourage continues, an important factor being that this media campaign is supported by the mainstream media of the ruling party as well as NGOs and media affiliated with Soros.
Whereas previously one could see cyclical accusations that Zelensky and his entourage were linked to Kolomoisky, could not find an FSB agent in Zelensky’s entourage or were moving money offshore, now the topic of accusations against the personalities that are placed around Zelensky is returning. Now the emphasis is not that any of these characters are connected to the oligarch Kolomoisky, but that Zelensky’s entourage itself is not only ineffective and incompetent but poses a threat to Ukraine and hence to the interests of the US in the face of “Russian aggression”.
Certainly it may look like a one-time “political denunciation” aimed at influencing certain parts of the US establishment, but if we look at the release of such materials in retrospect all of them are links in a chain reflecting the political reality, where certain circles associated with the Democratic Party are systematically working to discredit Zelensky and his entourage in order to replace them with a more convenient figure.
And the main beneficiary of this campaign in Ukraine is Poroshenko, since all the main accusations against Zelensky were most conveniently framed by the rhetoric rebroadcast by media affiliated with Poroshenko, who had a much better relationship with Biden than Zelensky, who is branded with Trump over the Burisma case.
What is remarkable is that after the open war with Akhmetov and accusations by Zelensky that Akhmetov was plotting a coup, the US mainstream media began to raise the topic of “responsible businessman Akhmetov” and Zelensky’s actions that threaten Ukraine’s economy. Now we see how, shortly after the indictment of Poroshenko, coupled with the threat of his arrest upon his return to Ukraine, again the US media is publishing an article declaring Zelensky’s entourage ineffective and threatening Ukraine’s interests.
In this regard, Kolomoisky and Zelensky’s attempts to attack Akhmetov and Poroshenko could be an attempt to prevent a situation from taking shape when a project to replace Ukraine’s puppet government is finally formed and other oligarchic groups can, through their lobbyists in Washington, offer another project (if not already offered) for reconfiguring Ukraine’s governance system, where Kolomoisky and his proxies would be removed from the equation and some compromising figure, such as the one who would be the conditional “leader of free Ukraine”.
And in order to avoid unacceptable damage in Ukraine (because formally almost all the suppression apparatus is now concentrated in the hands of Zelensky) these “public denunciations” in the American press follow, in order to show Zelensky and Kolomoysky that in the USA they are not satisfied and consider them rather than Akhmetov and Poroshenko to be the bigger problem.
The exposure of Akhmetov and Poroshenko in the Ukrainian media, in terms of influencing the American establishment, is clearly insufficient, and Kolomoysky’s lobbying opportunities in the US are limited after the start of his legal prosecution and the imposition of sanctions against those associated with him (such as the same Dubinsky). And the fact that Zelensky has not been able to become “fully owned” by the US for 2 years is one of the reasons why such publications continue to appear on resources associated with the Democratic Party.
It’s not a question of whether the people around Zelensky are in fact competent (though the answer is of course not). It’s about how these individuals contribute (or don’t contribute) to US goals in Ukraine. The US regularly demonstrates that they will not abandon the “Ukrainian case” so easily and will milk it to the last Ukrainian, using it as part of the ongoing Cold War against Russia.
And if the notional “incompetence” of those surrounding Zelensky, for one reason or another, begins to threaten these long-term goals (especially against the backdrop of the clash with Russia over further escalation of the arms race and NATO expansion to the East), then there is a reasonable need to replace “problematic cogs”, which is now being exposed in the Western media.
Ukrainian oligarchs, understanding the specifics of the US attitude to the Ukrainian issue, try to use such views through their lobbying resources in Washington, offering more competent ones instead of “incompetent cogs”, and in the case of Poroshenko – “familiar and well known”. As a result, the overlapping interests and contacts, most of which take place behind the scenes, manifest themselves both in “sudden information attacks from the outside” (and not related to Russia) and as internal attacks aimed at reinforcing the thesis that Zelensky must be noticed either before or during the election.
Into this piggy bank now goes everything – the revelations of Avakov, the revelations of Burba, Wagnergate, the failure of preparations for the winter, offshore corruption charges, and the erosion of the “Servant of the People”, which pours through Poroshenko and Akhmetov channels into the heads of “wise Ukrainians”, since, unlike Medvedchuk, they have such an opportunity.
Accordingly, Kolomoisky and Zelensky have a peculiar fork in their decisions. If we do nothing and watch the rival financial and oligarchic groups work to establish ties with the American establishment in order to prepare the ground for a change of power in Ukraine, then of course it will happen just as it has happened repeatedly in Ukraine, where one oligarchic grouping has replaced another.
And knowing that Zelensky is not trusted in the White House, they are trying to put pressure on the oligarchs competing with Kolomoisky to either make them give in and abandon their plans (as Kolomoisky himself had to do in 2015) or to discredit them in the eyes of the Americans. Hence, for example, the accusations against Akhmetov that he is allegedly planning a coup d’état in which Russia is involved. As well as accusing Poroshenko of treason for buying coal from the Russian-backed DPR and LPR.
Thus the accusations themselves have a de facto external addressee, who of course do not want to see anyone with any connection to Russia at the helm of Ukraine. Hence all these endless accusations in Kyiv “You are Putin’s agent! No, you are Putin’s agent! You are both agents of Putin!”. One has to understand to whom this is addressed.
Another thing is that there are certainly no fools sitting in Washington, so just ungrounded talk about “working for Russia” does not convince anyone there. That’s why instead of exposing “traitorous oligarchs surrounding Zelensky”, the American media mostly talk about the toxicity of Zelensky and his entourage, which, within the framework of the new narrative, “poses a threat to Ukraine”.
Boris Rozhin, Analytical Service of Donbass