Telegram roundup: Oleshko and Buzhansky
Poroshenkite criticizes militarism and mobilization, reflections on US hegemony from a Russian-speaking Zionist Ukrainian nationalist
True news: Oleshko’s blog. This is Myroslav Oleshko’s telegram. He is a nationalist Ukrainian who used to work for Poroshenko but is very critical of Zelensky. His criticism of Zelensky and mobilization is sometimes of such a degree that some accuse him of being a Russian agent. He escaped mobilization early in the war by emigrating to Austria, supposedly paying a large bribe for it. Pro-government criticism of him generally focuses on this fact, using their favorite strategy of dividing Ukrainians between those stuck at home and those abroad. For context, ‘unbreakable’ is ‘nezlamni’ in Ukrainian. It is often used by government propaganda to describe the Ukrainian people, in the sense of ‘we are unbreakable, anyone dampening morale is a traitor’.
More and more people understand this. Not just me, Zaluzhnyi, Denys Yeliseyevich, and a number of other citizens. Dubinsky, whom Zelenskyy branded a traitor, also shares this opinion. Little by little, people are beginning to say this out loud, not afraid of the whining of unbreakable couch warriors on Twitter. Because they understand that Zelenskyy's endless power thanks to the war is not worth such sacrifices. I just feel sorry that Kurbanova is silent and does not express her position. Why is that? Is she afraid? I'm sorry that Olena only plays the role of the unbreakable, calling everyone evaders and hiding her true opinion. Hennadiy Druzenko repeated everything I said earlier:
"We have lost 1500 km and tens of thousands of lives, 30,000 is a minimalist estimate. And what have we gained? We gained nothing. Our land is being destroyed, our infrastructure is being destroyed. Even with Abrams and Leopards. What have we reclaimed, just one Robotino? If we do not see a game changer that radically changes the situation in the war, then we must admit that this meat grinder grinds, grinds, grinds lives, destinies, our cities, our energy infrastructure. And we need to determine for ourselves, honestly admit, whether we are ready, as an option, to cease active combat operations along the existing line of demarcation. By the way, Poroshenko accepted such realities in 2014. If in 1.5 years we have not moved anywhere after the announced offensive, then today we need to look for alternative ways. I just work with victims of the war. We see how much blood, how many maimed people the war produces daily without any return of territories. For me, life is always more important than territories. But what the president has shaped, his maximalism "to the last grandfather in the last village" - half the world is not ready to support that. The same China, and the economy of Russia allows it to fight indefinitely. Zelenskyy's goal of "to the last grandfather in the last village" - let him now tell how to achieve this, I have not heard it yet. But to fight naked against a wall - you will smash your head. I do not see this in the foreseeable future. Because small Russia always loses to big Russia."
Max Buzhansky is a parliamentarian in Zelensky’s Servant of the People party from the city of Dnipro(petrovsk), the homeland of infamous oligarch Igor Kolomoisky. Buzhansky is of Jewish descent and his references to Israel are not coincidental, he is a committed Zionist. Buzhansky was close to Kolomoisky, and was always a fierce critic of the west and pro-western politicians. He was a leading journalist in one of the ‘pro-Russian’ TV channels (ZiK) unconstitutionally sanctioned by Zelensky in 2021, though Buzhansky had left it in 2020.
He is a Russian speaker and was often branded a ‘pro Russian fifth columnist’ by sundry Sorosites, though in fact Russia actually sanctioned him in 2020. When the war started, he became a great big patriot, and is often accused by his erstwhile comrade Dubinsky of having become a Zelensky propagandist. Desperate to prove his loyalty, he has been among those lobbying for the mobilization of women. In any case, I think the following post is evidence that an anti-western turn in Zelensky’s rhetoric is certainly not impossible, and would even be logical.
The system, established by the United States, is classic patron-client.
If you like, it's a feudal suzerain-vassal relationship not in the primitively humiliating sense that is now associated with these terms, but in the original meaning.
It's a system of mutual obligations of support, very clearly expressed.
Indeed, I emphasize, these obligations are mutual.
We observe how the United States step by step disappoints the expectations of those who rely on it.
Ukraine waited for weapons from October to April, bleeding profusely.
Netanyahu sharply criticized Washington yesterday for blocking military supplies.
Some might say that for America these are just moments in passing, that it has its own interests, etc., and that would be true.
But it's also true that out of its 250 years of existence, the States spent about 170 years in complete and voluntary isolation, and the remaining 80 years are also just a fleeting moment.
Capturing global domination in a broad sense is quite easy; one could list numerous countries that have managed it at different times in their history.
It is much harder to maintain it for a long time, and then to let go of it without faltering, as nothing is eternal.
And for huge states, this is always a problem.
How does it usually happen?
The patron state becomes lazy.
It's all good for it, and it finds it hard to make itself spend money and shed the blood of its citizens somewhere far away, beyond the horizon.
First, they look for those who will fight instead, then their roles change, then it becomes a pity to spend money, then there's less money, the roles have changed, and then, like smoke, the power dissipates.
The trouble with every patron is that it's hard to believe when you are so strong and robust, and no one ever notices the first signs of the beginning of the decline.
And it always starts the same way, the projection of power fails to project.
Once, twice, and then either a sea of blood must be spilled to regain authority or say goodbye to ambitions.
In Israel, by the way, this trick has been seen many times, by the Assyrians, Egyptians, Persians, Greeks, Romans, Byzantines, Seljuks, Mamluks, Ottomans, all came and went.
And it always started the same way, lacking the strength to be strong somewhere out there.
And then the formula never fails to produce its results.