The MIC will not tolerate peace
Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy wasn't supposed to win.
The establishment wanted the corrupt, anti-Russian President Petro Poroshenko to be re-elected.
Zelenskiy is liable to do something unpredictable.
"I called him urgently. I told him that this brings us no closer to peace," Zelenskiy said during a news briefing in Kyiv, adding that he had urged Putin to ask the Moscow-backed separatists who are holding parts of eastern Ukraine to "stop killing our people."
He also said Putin had promised him something, details of which would be disclosed later.
The Kremlin said the two presidents discussed the prospects of cooperation under the so-called Normandy format for negotiations aimed at putting an end to the conflict, and agreed to intensify their work on prisoner exchange.
It was their second publicly announced phone call since Zelenskiy was elected president in April.
Talking peace with Putin was not something Poroshenko was willing to do.
Washington liked it that way.
Now Zelenski is in danger of messing all of that up.
So how do you think the MIC feels about that?
It turns out that what is, by my guess, probably a CIA asset at Slate decided to announce it out loud.
The potential for another Ukrainian revolution festers beneath this year’s deceptively calm presidential and parliamentary elections. It would be the third one in 15 years, following the 2004 Orange Revolution and the 2014 Euro-Maidan uprising.
In April, 75 percent of voters elected celebrity comedian Volodymyr Zelenskiy to replace the president who had led Ukraine since the 2014 revolution, Petro Poroshenko. Then in July, Zelenskiy’s party won a supermajority in Parliament, introducing single-party rule to Ukraine for the first time since independence from the Soviet Union in 1991—and empowering Zelenskiy to govern without a coalition.
Western experts have praised these elections as free and fair. But some Ukrainians see them as a subversion of democracy, believing the results were orchestrated by opportunist oligarchs behind a pro-Russian political technology project to elect an empty vessel—Zelenskiy—that can be filled and manipulated. Many activists, volunteers from the last revolution, and veterans of the ongoing war against Russian-backed separatists in the country’s east lament Zelenskiy’s rise as a symptom of their sick state unappreciative of the sacrifices and progress made since the 2014 Maidan.
In reality very little progress has been made since 2014.
So what we are talking about is a coup against an overwhelmingly popular government.
Zelenskiy is on-message about the EU, NATO, anti-corruption, investment, increasing standards of living, meeting unmet promises for impeachment, and ending MP immunity. But he has also hired loyalists from the pro-Russian regime of ex-President Viktor Yanukovych that was overthrown in 2014, criticized a sensitive language law, and indicated that he will implement the 2014–15 Minsk peace agreements.
Nationalists equate Minsk—a hasty deal to end the war in eastern Ukraine signed by the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, Ukraine, Russia, and its separatist proxies—with surrender.
Even more provocatively, Ukraine’s pro-Russia party placed second in the July elections, a reversal that could cast a long shadow over the country’s westward trajectory should this party begin to reassert its influence. Critics claim Zelenskiy is latently pro-Russian anyway: pointing to Ukrainophobic humor from his comedy career, his hit TV show’s dramatization of a neo-Nazi coup—Russian propaganda depicts Ukraine’s post-revolutionary leaders as fascists—and his appointments of incendiary staff who served the Yanukovych regime ousted by 2014’s “revolution of dignity.” Now five years later, activists await the next indignity: Will it be surrender to Russia in eastern Ukraine, political persecution of Maidan leaders, or the humiliating return of Yanukovych himself?
Western-backed civil society groups warned Zelenskiy mere days after his inauguration that crossing their red lines might “lead to political instability” and that “consequences can be fatal.” 72 groups have now signed a 27-item list of security, foreign policy, economic, national identity, governance, and information policy reforms that—if jeopardized—they threaten will incite a third Maidan.