Ukraine as a model of what not to do.

In my latest piece for RT, which you can read here, I discuss the decision of Ukrainian president Vladimir Zelensky to shut down three opposition TV stations. I point out that Western pundits had said that post-Maidan Ukraine would be a model of liberal democracy that would serve as an example for Russia. The reality, I argue, is the direct opposite.

12 thoughts on “Ukraine as a model of what not to do.”

  1. “In reality, the answer could simply be that they’ve looked at Ukraine and decided that it isn’t a good example to follow.”

    I would posit that extends to the “democracy” of the EU as a model rather not to be followed:

    “Anderson subjects the other EU institutions to similar scrutiny. Their common features are secretiveness, democratic unaccountability, and ‘consensus’—‘a façade of unanimity’ principally imposed by Germany and France. The exception is the Parliament, but this ‘least consequential component of the Union’ merely provides ‘the appearance of a democratic assembly behind which oligarchic coteries are comfortably entrenched.’ The Central Bank, like the Court, is unique for being completely unaccountable to any outside authority, let alone any democratic institution, and so it is able to break the treaties which in theory empower it.

    What has been created is a system of interlocking oligarchies on a pre-democratic pattern. The horizontal relations between governments of ‘member-states’ (no longer independent sovereign states) are more important than the vertical relations between those governments and their citizens, to whom political decisions are presented as faits accomplis unconnected with, and sometimes clearly opposed to, popular mandates.”

    And I also posit that the USA also no longer serves as an example.

    Of course, the Russian populace likely does not read those publications, but just following the day to day process and utter incompetence of the representatives of those so called “democracies” should scare even the most fervent advocate for this “style” of democratic – nay clearly oligarchic – rule.
    If oligarchs still have strong influence in Russia’s politics – why change anything? Choosing the “West” version would clearly not produce any different outcome.


  2. One hot take that, I hope, will be further elucidated and, ha-ha, “explained away” by the throngs of your usual suspects from the “experts” and pundits crowd. As per your article:

    “The fact that the ban comes at a moment when Zelensky’s popularity is plummeting, and when Kozak’s party Opposition Platform – For Life is leading in national opinion polls may be entirely coincidental. But then again it may not. The move smacks of political desperation.”

    We are told repeatedly by everyone and their dog, that since the “Revolution of Dignity’s” crushing victory the Ukraine and the Ukrainians became more “united” as a nation, plus more pro-Western and anti-Russian.

    I’d like to hear their explanaition then, on how this rosy/blue’n’yellow picture correlates with the fact of continual existence and electoral popularity of the “party of separs and zradniks” (c) from the much maligned country’s East and South?

    [Oh, and bonus question for all true Ukr-nerds – how do they explain Ilya Kiva’s very own “road to Damascus” moment?]

    I will pretend, that I really, really wait not just for the answers, but for a mere fact that these question would (somehow!) register among the professopnal “watchers” caste.


    1. “The fact that the ban comes at a moment when Zelensky’s popularity is plummeting, and when Kozak’s party Opposition Platform – For Life is leading in national opinion polls may be entirely coincidental.”

      Per Dzhangirov (below), another striking coincidence is that these three channels (and only they) announced their intent to broadcast the much anticipated Neskoromny press conference (on February 10th).


  3. Anatoly Shariy has come out on the record saying he thinks Zelensky has gone mad. Literally. As in, mentally ill and totally lost his mind. That’s his explanation for what Zel did.

    Personally, I believe that Zel is sane, and that he is only doing what his American curators tell him to do. It’s quite a shame, actually, because Zel used to be a talented comedian.


    1. Never mind the svido loon fear factor. In the West, they’ve coercively muted those Ukrainians differing from them, according to a Kharkov born ethnic Ukrainian and some others I touch base with.


    2. “doing what his American curators tell him to do”

      I watched another Ukrainian video yesterday. It has nothing to do with closing TV channels, but it’s amazing. I didn’t quite realize the extent of American control over Ze-government. Anyway, here it is:


  4. Go West, become a failed State! The Ukrainian example has helped greatly in Belarus where the vast majority have no intention of handing the Country over to Western stooges, even if they do want change. For Russians it just confirms what the majority already knew from the 90s. It is far more telling that the West has no more tools left in the box. Same shit different decade.
    It doesn’t matter in the slightest what the new administration in the US thinks (or does) it isn’t going to work.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s