Fear of Kolomoisky. Why did “Benya” scare you with Russian tanks?
The story of Igor Kolomoisky’s latest interview with The New York Times made many people talk almost about the transformation of the Saul of Ukrainian politics into Pavel and about the radical change of leadership of the co-owner of the Privat group, who “suddenly” proposed normalizing relations with Russia. What was it all about, what goals do such information dumps pursue, and what do they indicate - that’s what we’ll talk about below.
First of all, let’s agree to put aside the entire line of explanations for the actions of Kolomoisky and large businessmen of his level, associated with some kind of “epiphany,” “changing shoes in the air,” and the like. They do not have “views” that can be changed, there is only a “point of view” dictated by current benefits and interests. Moreover, Kolomoisky is known for his exceptional ability to profitably sell and resell his changing point of view several times. People like Kolomoisky would not have become who they are if they were not smart, calculating and extremely cynical people. This means that they understand what they are saying, to whom and why. So why?
Now many observers of the Ukrainian political process are speaking in unison about the weakening positions of Kolomoisky, who is losing the battle for determining influence on the course of the country and on Zelensky with other interest groups in the current government.
First of all, with the so-called “Soros”, and to be more precise, with a conglomerate of politicians and activists of the liberal-nationalist trend, not just with pro-Western views (such views are typical for almost all Ukrainian politicians, including those speculating on the topic of the Russian language and support for the UOC) , but directly and directly raised on Western grants by the corresponding Western structures.
And because of this, they are direct agents of influence of the USA and the EU in Ukrainian politics, and partly and in general - an integral part of the global supranational nomenclature, which, having completed the task in Ukraine, can be transferred by customers to another front of work - somewhere in Tunisia or Puerto -Rico.
The most striking examples of this kind in Ukraine are Natalia Yaresko, Ulyana Suprun, Alexander Danilyuk, the representative of Ukraine to the IMF Vladislav Rashkovan or the current Minister of Economy Timofey Milovanov.
Kyiv observers point out: despite a number of tactical successes in the placement of controlled personnel in state corporations that control budget flows, won the courts on Privatbank, allowing to save several billion hryvnias, as well as successful attempts to “saddle” a number of schemes in the energy sector and maintain electricity benefits for their own ferroalloy plants, increasing rent payments for competitors, in general the oligarch’s political shares really went down.
Signs of a cooling of relations between Kolomoisky and Ze are the open opposition of deputies associated with him in the Rada, who sharply criticize individual government ministers and presidential security forces, as well as failed votes for presidential and Cabinet bills, forcing the Presidential Office to look for the votes needed for a positive result on the side, lining up following the example of the Poroshenko administration, a system of informal relationships with opposition factions and formally independent majoritarians who support the authorities.
Kolomoisky himself is also not shy about impartial assessments of the actions of the authorities and their Western advisers, calls ministers “morons” and “scum,” and gives out “useful advice” to the president - so in the end, Zelensky’s press secretary Yulia Mendel was forced to write a sharp post in which she pointed out to the fact that Kolomoisky “is not a representative of the authorities and the team of Vladimir Zelensky, he does not have the authority to say anything on behalf of Ukraine or the Office of the President, positions on resolving state affairs are not discussed with him.”
The recent exclusion of two deputies from their Servant of the People faction (Skorokhod and Polyakov) is also called the “defeat of the Kolomoisky group” - not even tactical, but strategic. It suddenly became clear that even sworn competitors from Western influence groups, Kvartal 95 and businessman Ilya Pavlyuk, could become friends with the overly self-sufficient oligarch. And in a crowd, as they say, it’s easier to beat Benya.
In this situation, Kolomoisky’s group may lose the remnants of influence on parliament that it previously had, when 35-40 people’s deputies oriented towards the co-owner Privat were considered a “golden share” that determined the results of controversial votes. Games based on the contradictions between competing groups also seem to be ineffective so far, or their result is not obvious to the outside eye.
The quotes for Kolomoisky’s domestic political actions and his problems abroad are worsening. It is no secret that he is in Ukraine not because of special patriotism and love for his father’s coffins, but for much more prosaic reasons.
A serious investigation is underway against him in the United States. Moreover, proud of the fact that he “taught” in the “courses” of risky games, in which deceiving a partner is considered valor and aerobatics, Kolomoisky seems to have outsmarted himself. Having played too hard, he managed to quarrel simultaneously with both the Republicans (interfering with the activities of Giuliani’s lobbyists in Ukraine), and with the Democrats, who opened the front of a media war against him and set their infops against him, like the Atlantic Council, whose authors call the oligarch “toxic”, “odious” "and almost a representative of criminal circles, casting a shadow on the bright reforms of President Zelensky, who should urgently get rid of the tutelage of such a negative character.
And in Ukraine itself, Kolomoisky is successfully being molded into a new image of a “toxic burden” for Zelensky – instead of the previous image of the “all-powerful puppeteer of the oligarch’s servant.”
“Open any handshake blogger and you will immediately read about the “Kolomoisky group”, which sabotages the bright initiatives of the people’s power. It would seem that half of Soros’s chicks have fledged quite comfortably in the new government, but it’s not enough for them, they won’t let up. The ultimate goal of the information campaign is clear - to split the Servant of the People, throwing out “Kolomoisky’s people” from there, and to form a new coalition SN + Golos + Batkivshchyna. The same one in which Vakarchuk’s sponsors invested before the elections, but which was swept away by voters, suddenly giving the Servant a mono-majority. The idea is apparently also attractive to part of Zelensky’s entourage – they are clearly burdened by Kolomoisky and are not against sending him back to Israel,” writes a well-known Kiev political blogger.
Kolomoisky’s revelations can be correctly understood and adequately assessed only in the context of Kolomoisky’s war with the chicks of Sorosov’s nest surrounded by Zelensky, and in general with Washington’s attempts to undermine Kolomoisky’s influence in Ukraine, says another Ukrainian observer. The oligarch’s message to the Americans is deciphered something like this: “Leave me alone, or I’ll go to Putin.”
At the same time, Ukrainian observers rightly point to the fact that all these “seditious” revelations were said by Kolomoisky after he agreed on a “dedicated channel” for the import of electricity and coal from Russia for his enterprises at exclusive prices - cheaper than it was necessary would like to buy from the same Rinat Akhmetov. Such agreements with the Russians could only be bilateral - which, in fact, gave Kolomoisky grounds to tell American journalists that everything could be resolved with the Russians, because they are “only interested in money,” and they are ready to give this money to Ukraine provided that Kiev stops “comb the ego” of the “collective Vyatrovich” and take steps to end the “disadvantageous” war.
At the same time, a number of observers doubt that Kolomoisky has real political agreements with the Kremlin or with some influential circles in Moscow. Thus, political scientist Dmitry Dzhangirova calls such statements by the oligarch “bluff” and “trolling” of the Americans, which only indicates how bad the Kolomoisky group is doing politically within the country. Indeed, if you follow this logic, Moscow cannot have any guarantees that “Benya” will not habitually betray his partners. Therefore, it is logical to assume that no one in or around the Kremlin will negotiate anything serious with the oligarch. Moreover, given the decrease in the weight of his group in Zelensky’s entourage, which means, among other things, a decrease in institutional and organizational capabilities for implementing agreements in practice - even if such agreements were reached on something.
Besides, talking is not moving bags. And this is not the first interview with Kolomoisky over the past six months that has caused resentment from the Ukrainian “war party.” He has already called what is happening in Donbass a “civil conflict” and accused the Maidan of ruining the country. However, all this remained his personal point of view, without being converted into a change in the information policy of his “Pluses”, which are blowing the same tune as they did a year, two, and five years ago. And the statements of the ex-general director of “Plus” Tkachenko, who is responsible in the status of people’s deputy in parliament for humanitarian policy, did not deviate one iota from the dominant post-Maidan mainstream. And this is an indicator much more important than Kolomotsky’s attempts to scare the Americans with mythical Russian tanks near Dresden.
Anonymous telegram channels close to Zelensky’s Office also add fuel to the fire of doubt. In particular, one of them openly reports: they say that Kolomoisky communicates well with Zelensky, and “the strategy of the information separation of IVK from Zelensky, as well as the departure of Andriy Bohdan into the shadows, is a tactical move.”
“Igor Kolomoisky should play the role of a bad cop for the “West,” and Zelensky, against his background, should become a “good cop.” The IVK will voice all those toxic messages that should push the West to compromise in negotiations with Ukraine. His interview with The New York Times before the arrival of the IMF mission should be viewed from this angle. Sometimes the West needs to be reminded that Ukraine is holding back the “Russian world”, and this costs a lot of money, you have to pay for it - the president cannot say this, especially in the form that the IVK made an ultimatum. This is why we need a “bad” oligarch,” a telegram channel associated with the Presidential Office confesses with childish spontaneity.
On the other hand, that part of the “Kolomoisky case” that is connected with the American investigation against him is not a “game” or a “tactical move” at all. This is precisely, in contrast to Ukrainian games in the political sandbox, a harsh reality that really is a sore point for the oligarch. Kolomoisky went on the defensive, clearly because of the investigation. He doesn’t want to be Firtash number two at all and, given his previous usefulness to the Americans, the question is who cheated whom in this situation.
Moreover, if you turn to the sensational text in The New York Times, you can find a lot of interesting things that are not talked about in Kyiv, which is fixated only on quotes from Kolomoisky. In general, this is a text with the message that local oligarchs are bad, Zelensky is unreliable as a former “clown” of Kolomoisky, and stuff like that. If today's Ukraine were a fully sovereign state, the reason for the scandal would be the tone of the article itself, and not the chatter of a cornered oligarch about peace with Russia.
This really looks like a banal bluff. Kolomoisky says openly “forbidden” things in Kiev discourse as if he is so afraid that it is easier for him to take on his enemies weakly rather than adjust.
If Kolomoisky had a real opportunity to come to an agreement with someone, he would have done it long ago. Instead, he shows fear. Most likely, we can assume that he does not have any real options at all that would allow him to get out of the situation in which he found himself.
Although, if we think about it “for growth”, in principle, he has a small external chance - if in the United States itself, as a result of the upheavals associated with the upcoming elections, something shakes so much that they no longer have time for foreign policy in the Ukrainian direction.
Ukrainians, I must say, are very lucky in a sense. So it might work.
If you find an error, please select a piece of text and press Ctrl + Enter.
Thank you!
Now the editors are aware.