Telegram roundup: Dubinsky and Bondarenko

Speculations on Yermak's purpose, US motivations in publishing Ukraine's peace talks, meditations on hyper-Hobbesianism forever

Aleksandr Dubinsky is another Russian speaking parliamentarian, also in Zelensky’s party, but from Kiev. I published about him here - he was arrested in 2023 on charges of ‘state treason’. The cause? Sharing information about Hunter Biden’s corrupt misdeeds in Ukraine. Kolomoisky, whom he is often considered close to, put his bets on Trump against the democrats. Anyway, Dubinsky’s commentary can be interesting, certainly moreso than Buzhansky’s, though the two are often lumped together. The following text is in part reacting to Yermak’s very visible role at the recent Geneva ‘Peace Conference’. Yermak is the head of the President’s Office, and is either the most powerful man in Ukraine today or only just below Zelensky. According to Time, he is the most powerful man in Ukraine - Zelensky doesn’t even make the list of most important world figures. I wrote about Yermak here

I've been pondering why there is such an overt, almost indecent, promotion of Yermak in the public space, in photos, on trips. Additionally, we all know how jealous of success Zelenskyy is, who does not like it when others are applauded.

Clearly, this is a deliberate policy aimed at enabling Yermak to establish as many contacts abroad as possible, and to be handshaken among elected politicians.

Why might this be happening so insistently?

1. Successor Operation

Its implementation is possible if Zelenskyy feels a threat or the need to step down from power. This could be due to health, family, strategy, partners’ demands—anything. I don’t have any theory that I personally believe in more than the others.

If he has identified Yermak as his successor for such a case, he must first ensure a guarantee of an unchanged course—that is, the continuation of the war—the only condition under which there will be no elections.

When he introduces Yermak to international partners, he says, "Meet my successor; under him, the course will be unchanged—the 1991 borders." Yermak’s task is then to provide such guarantees to partners, "we will not deviate from this path." And this is already evident in his public speeches.

In this case, Zelenskyy can remain president, but delegate more rights for contacts and decision-making to Yermak.

2. Operation Public Dismissal.

A fantastical version, but one that also cannot be dismissed, especially when dealing with Volodymyr Oleksandrovych, who has already sidelined a dozen of his, seemingly, closest associates.

Sometimes, to concentrate negativity, something or someone is pushed forward from the general mass. The lightning rod is the highest on the building, but it always takes the first strike.

Could such an overt promotion of Yermak be the position of a "lightning rod," and for what kind of lightning he is being prepared—we will only find out when the thunder strikes. If it strikes at all.

3. Operation Public Protection.

Sometimes the attempt to introduce someone into high society can also be a way to protect them from a strike that may come from a "friendly side." The higher the level of public connections and hierarchy, the harder it is to apply, for example, some restrictive measures, to set staffing conditions.

In any case, the level of Yermak's public representation has become so high that one of these versions will work in the very near future.

A more positive post, also from Dubinsky, but from yesterday:

I want to touch on the reason why American media published the full version of the Zelenskyy-Putin peace agreement from April 2022.

As a media professional, I view this publication primarily as a basis for questions that will now be asked in interviews with Zelenskyy in the foreign press. The most difficult task now will be to explain why compromises were possible (and beneficial for Ukraine, considering the situation) at that time, but are now impossible.

Previously, the Office of the President could talk about the atrocities of the Russians in Bucha, but now this argument has turned out to be false – since the agreement has a much later date.

Now, it is necessary to explain to the European electorate why there were casualties and billions in costs if everything could have been resolved simpler, cheaper for everyone, and better already in 2022, and the main obstacle to this solution became Zelenskyy’s ambitions.

This is not a telethon. Even if the Office of the President does not respond to these questions, they will be asked by the European, Asian, and American press. Most importantly, these questions will further strengthen the pro-Russian positions of the so-called Global South, and of China and India.

As a politician, I see in this publication one of the elements of a strategy of global pressure on Kyiv, aimed at achieving agreement on negotiations with Russia, and abandoning the slogan "victory or death". Moreover, the Kyiv leaders themselves are certainly not planning to die.

I repeat that at the dates of the Swiss summit, we passed a turning point – Ukraine has been gathering everyone at the same table for so long that everyone is now waiting for a step from Kyiv.

And this step could be either an escalation capable of surpassing Putin's ultimatum (but which is impossible without the approval of allies), or a transition to peaceful settlement.

At the same time, according to my feelings, the West will not give permission for escalation, and we are indeed talking about the second scenario.

And God willing.

Kost’ Bondarenko is a social democrat political analyst I quite like. I also wanted to write something about the Ukrainska Pravda article he discusses below - he beat me to the punch, and much better than I could have done. This publication is Ukraine’s NYT, originally created by USAID. It is a good barometer of opinion among the elite, particularly the more pro-western sections of it.

Recently, I received a link to an article by Anton Drobovych, the director of the Institute of National Remembrance, titled "The Social Contract of Eternal War" (https://www.pravda.com.ua/rus/columns/2024/06/14/7460763/). The author questions what the "social contract" should be within Ukrainian society during a war that could span decades.

Drobovych's extensive foray into the theory of state and law is hardly justified. He elaborately details well-known truths familiar to anyone who has encountered a basic course in political science (those unfamiliar with the subject are unlikely to find the article interesting). Following Thomas Hobbes, Drobovych uses the allegory of Leviathan, which is quite natural for polemical literature of the mid-17th century but seems rather archaic today. Leviathan, according to Hobbes, is not just a biblical monster to be slain by the Messiah at the Second Coming, whose flesh will be served at the feast of the righteous. Leviathan represents the state itself, and debates over "our Leviathan being more Leviathan than theirs" do not obscure the fact that the state is a "necessary evil" (a necessity disputed by Proudhon, Bakunin, Dragomanov, and other founders of anarchism in the 19th century). Ultimately, according to Hobbes, every state must eventually be destroyed (a "mortal god"). Thus, taking Hobbes too literally risks running afoul of Article 109 of the Criminal Code. Calls to feed our Leviathan, if we do not want to feed the Russian Leviathan, do not change the essence of the matter: in any case, we face a "blubbering, huge, naughty, barking, hundred-headed monster." At the same time, Hobbes himself offers a lot of value – for example, 19 natural laws, half of which are not observed in modern Ukraine.

For me, it is very important that the author (Drobovych) acknowledges that "this war is chronologically and essentially a continuation of the Revolution of Dignity." [Euromaidan] At least it's honest.

But most importantly, we are beginning to be prepared for a) a long war (more precisely, a situation of "neither war nor peace" - Drobovych details this thoroughly); b) a "social contract" that would recognize the need for certain wartime procedures (I think extending the president's term indefinitely until the complete end of the war is also part of this package?); c) abandoning the occupied territories (Drobovych contemplates sabotage and guerrilla warfare behind enemy lines). It seems that Zelenskyy's circle has decided to abandon the policy of "drinking coffee on the promenade in Yalta." It looks like there is now a preparation of public opinion for the fact that we will reluctantly leave some territories, but will not give them up. We need a new "social contract" (which is impossible under wartime conditions, as Drobovych's proposed "internal communication with adherence to the best democratic standards, with respect to all participants in the process and taking into account the opinion of international partners, who are a key factor in our essence," is simply unfeasible under current conditions - go ahead, tell all this to a representative of the mobilization office). And this "social contract" will remain in effect until we recover the lost territories. We might partly return to normal life, but forget about the old order. There will be militarization of society. There will be constant tension in relations with Russia. There will be an eternal existence in Heidegger's "being-without-concealment-in-conditions-of-maximum-risk." Thus, the conclusion (and I think not just mine) is obvious - it is not the time to change the Leader. We need to change the rules of the game (the social contract) under the new conditions. As they say, we have what we have, and so we must understand and forgive.

In short, prepare for the fact that while the hot phase of the war may end, closed borders, absence of elections and political competition, censorship, and other "delights" will remain for decades. This is the essence of the new social contract. Because Leviathan. And Leviathan is wow!!!

Continuing the discussion on Hobbes, it's fair to note that Hobbes often contradicted himself—compare his "Leviathan" with his "Behemoth." And if we're citing English political thought from the turbulent century, Hobbes had a formidable opponent and critic in Edward Hyde, Earl of Clarendon. But here the question arises, "who is more valuable to the mother of history." Hobbes, who would undoubtedly appeal not only to Anton Drobovych but especially to Zelenskyy and Yermak, was a consistent advocate of absolute sovereignty, believing that the bearer of power possesses all authoritative powers, including control over internal life, the right to wage war and make peace, issue laws, judge for supposed criminal behavior, and even the right to order a subject to kill a parent. Hobbes believed that the swords of justice and war should be in the same hands. A sign of sovereignty is that it is above the law. The idea of limited power is untenable because any limitation leads to the inability to perform the tasks for which the power was established. Clarendon defended the supremacy of law and aimed to limit the power of the sovereign. Hobbes and Clarendon also had different understandings of the causes of the civil war. For Hobbes, it was the product of a false philosophical system; for Clarendon, it resulted from the influence of "bad people" who crushed the laws and forcibly wrested power from the monarch's hands. If I were in Zelenskyy's team, I too would glorify Hobbes and extol him in every way. Of course! In the current conditions, Hobbes is everything!

I won't delve further into philosophizing. I will only say one thing: excessive fascination with Hobbes invariably leads to the point where a Cromwell will again be able to say his historical phrase: "How well our king is put together!" Or president. It doesn't matter. Sapienti sat, as they used to say in Ancient Rome during the times of Caligula.