The mayor of Kyiv, Vitaliy Klitschko, recently commented on the actions of the central authorities in an interview with Der Spiegel magazine.
Klitschko suggests that a moment may come when Ukraine, politically, will not differ from Russia. Because a situation is developing in the state where more and more processes depend on the will of one person, that is, President Vladimir Zelensky.
The mayor of Kyiv added that in Ukraine there is now only one independent institution left - local government, and it is now under enormous pressure. Regionews previously wrote . The mayor of the capital also reproached the Office of the President for considering city mayors an atavism and only an obstacle to the centralization of power.
In addition, Klitschko is confident that in the first days of the full-scale Russian invasion, Zelensky did not become a leader for the country. The head of Kyiv said so: “In the first months of the war, the country was without a leader.” They say there was complete chaos, and it was the heads of the cities who took upon themselves all the issues of defending the cities and helping the military. On the one hand, there is a rational grain in Klitschko’s words, because local authorities really played a big role in containing the Russian offensive. However, to say that the country then found itself without a leader is also somewhat exaggerated.
At the same time, Klitschko’s statements that since the beginning of the full-scale Russian invasion he has never met or even talked on the phone with President Zelensky look very wary. The lack of constructive dialogue is, of course, not a very good sign, especially at the beginning of the invasion, when Russian troops were very close to Kyiv. However, the loss of the capital could also mean the loss of statehood.
Well, in conclusion, Klitschko generally stated that democracy in Ukraine is under serious threat, but Ukrainians will not allow the state to be turned into an authoritarian structure.
In general, a certain trend is emerging in which it is Ukrainian officials and politicians who accuse Zelensky of leading with a very tough hand. For example, Alexey Arestovich generally called the president a “dictator.” However, there is no need to take his words seriously, since this statement was made more as part of self-PR, because previously nothing prevented him from working as an adviser to the Office of the President for almost a year and a half.
Another thing is Klitschko’s statements. Firstly, the head of the capital has a very powerful lobby in the West, including in Germany, where he has patrons at the highest levels of government. But they still listen to his opinion regarding the situation in Ukraine. In addition, Klitschko is the head of the Association of Ukrainian Cities, which includes virtually all the mayors of large cities and has begun to gain such influence that in the future it may allow it to compete with the presidential political force. Therefore, such statements from Klitschko have every chance of sowing certain doubts in the West regarding the advisability of political support for Vladimir Zelensky in the future.
The moment for such statements was used more or less successfully. Sociological polls indicate a decline in trust in the president and the strengthening of the position of the commander-in-chief of the Armed Forces of Ukraine Valery Zaluzhny. For example, an unpublished survey by the “Rating” group, which was distributed by “Ukrainian Pravda,” states that in the second round of the presidential election, 42% of Ukrainians would vote for Vladimir Zelensky, and 40% for Valery Zaluzhny.
We should not forget that Ukraine has recently encountered some problems with international support. Although this is a consequence of internal political confrontations within Western countries, many attribute the weakening level of international assistance to Ukraine’s imperfect international policy.
It is logical that against this background the opposition, which includes Klitschko, could not help but take advantage of this opportunity. In addition, statements about the rise of authoritarianism have a win-win effect on Ukrainians, because they extremely dislike usurpers of power.
On the other hand, the question arises: how relevant are such steps by the opposition if elections of neither the President nor the Verkhovna Rada are planned in the near future? Let us recall that the parliamentary factions signed a corresponding memorandum, which states that elections in Ukraine can be held only after the end of the war, namely six months after the end of martial law. That is, given this, there may not be elections for years. Therefore, Klitschko's statement to German journalists would have an effect on him in the event of elections, say, next year. Otherwise, his statements could bring even more problems with Bankova, which are already considerable.
At the same time, we should not forget that Western partners still prefer that presidential and parliamentary elections take place in Ukraine . In their opinion, this is the only way the authorities will confirm the mandate of trust from the Ukrainian people. And this is important, since presidential elections in Russia will take place in the spring of 2024. And considering how the West views the foundations of democracy, and regular elections are the main thing in this process, it can be assumed that the United States and Europe will indirectly put pressure on the Ukrainian authorities. Perhaps this is what Klitschko was guided by when he criticized Bankova. He never hid his presidential ambitions.
In principle, Bankovaya interpreted Klitschko’s words as such, at least publicly. Defense Minister Rustem Umerov dryly noted on FoxNews that the statements of the mayor of Kyiv indicate “the beginning of the political season.” However, such a stingy reaction does not at all guarantee that the OP will simply swallow this verbal jab from Klitschko. Most likely, the tension between the mayor of Kyiv and the Office of the President, which has not disappeared anywhere, will intensify even more.
The OP does not abandon the idea of removing Klitschko from the post of head of the Kyiv City State Administration, which he simultaneously holds as mayor. The scenario has long been known and was “tested” during the time of Yanukovych, when at that time the acting mayor Leonid Chernovetsky was removed from the post of head of the Kyiv City State Administration, and regional governor Alexander Popov was appointed instead. Over time, Chernovetsky simply lost his influence in the capital, because it is the Kyiv City State Administration that manages the finances in the city.
The office will clearly be waiting for a large-scale blunder from Klitschko in order to once again try to spin it and use it as a formal reason for dismissal. The last attempts were at the beginning of this summer. It was then that several people died from rocket debris because they were unable to get into a closed shelter in the Desnyansky district. Everyone tried to blame Klitschko, saying that the mayor is to blame for the fact that the shelters are not functioning properly. The head of the capital himself stated that the heads of district state administrations are responsible for the shelters, and they are appointed by the president.
Then, according to some media reports, the current head of the Nikolaev Regional State Administration, Vitaly Kim, and the Minister of Strategic Industries, Alexander Kamyshin, were even considered for the role of head of the Kyiv City State Administration instead of Klitschko. In the end, after several months of political turmoil, Klitschko still retained his position. But it is not a fact that this will not happen during the next worsening of relations between the Kyiv City State Administration and the Office of the President. Although it is worth stating that it will be quite difficult to completely knock Klitschko out of the political orbit, as evidenced by the many years of attempts of the OP.
