April and May are inconvenient months every year for the current government. Because with each anniversary of them taking office (and it is now the seventh), the topic of reporting arises. When you promise paradise but get hell instead, people have questions.
However, the authorities have skilled scriptwriters. They always try to mitigate risks. Through distraction, and outright denial. They engage in “what-if-ology,” trying to prove one point: if Poroshenko had won, it wouldn’t have been better.
The arsenal includes aggressive nonsense—all those “he would have fled,” “he would have surrendered,” and more complex reasoning about challenges: “Putin would have attacked anyway,” “Poroshenko wouldn’t have had a single-party majority,” “Poroshenko wouldn’t have had trust credit”…
The first group of arguments is absurd because it is disproven by practice. He neither fled nor surrendered in 2014-15, without an army, without help, and with a stagnant economy, and not in 2022, despite what Zelensky’s entourage hoped.
The second group requires somewhat more attention.
In fact, Putin attacked in 2014 when Ukraine was formally neutral, and Yanukovych was still in office. But in 2015, the large war was stopped by the Minsk agreements, which the current government curses. And here the level of escalation Putin and his strategists chose was calculated based on the effectiveness of possible resistance.
And here the answer to the accusations about “what difference does it make who would have been” is simple and consists of one word. Missiles. There wouldn’t have been cancellations/postponements of missile and overall defense programs in 2020. There wouldn’t have been hunger for the Army and the defense industry in 2020-21. There wouldn’t have been an economic decline already in 2019, even before COVID…
The more complex response refers to the factor that ultimately determines how resources are used and how the “cards are played” that have been dealt (to use a trendy expression).
The quality of governance.
Yes, Poroshenko would not have had a single-party majority. But an effective diplomat, experienced manager, and politician would have worked with what he received. As it was during 2014-2019—without upheavals, extinguishing crises, and achieving results.
Regarding trust—it’s also a question. By the end of 2021, trust in Zelensky also plummeted. Not just trust, even his rating almost equaled Poroshenko’s. However, the big challenge extinguished this. And if there hadn’t been an economic decline in 2019, but continued growth, with +5% economic growth, people would be much more forgiving of the government. Ask Kuchma, who calmly managed his second term, and Yushchenko, who left as the Nation’s Hope from an effective prime minister…
So, what-if-ology is very unfavorable for the current government. They ordered it in vain.
It would be better not to be smug but to accept the hand currently extended to them by Poroshenko. Because right now, to endure, survive, and win, we can only do it together.
And then, look, people will forgive a lot. Because a victorious Ukraine will definitely create more opportunities for this than any of your “shows.”
