For Fedorov, this incident with the appeal should serve as a lesson

That is precisely what most commentators did not like. Amid the escalating war, this is perceived not as a solution to existing political problems, but as the creation of yet another critical problem—a risk of destabilization. Furthermore, it has come to be seen as an attempt to prioritize one’s own political ambitions over the public interest.

This idea has clearly gotten off to a false start. But if the war drags on for another year or two with no prospect of a quick end, and if, at the same time, new anti-corruption investigations into high-ranking officials emerge, then the idea of holding elections during the war will begin to be considered in practical terms.

And for Fedorov and his political strategists, this story should serve as a lesson. A cold shower of criticism is beneficial for Fedorov so that he doesn’t come down with “star syndrome.” In general, this is an instructive story—it shows just how short the distance is from the euphoric ecstasy of emotional enthusiasm and support to almost mocking hate and sarcasm.

But I wouldn’t be too quick to write Fedorov off politically. He’ll suffer some losses in terms of image and poll numbers, but he’ll remain a player in the political landscape. It will be interesting to see the new poll numbers that come out in September. Reactions on social media and poll trends don’t always align; in any case, the “grassroots” reaction doesn’t involve such dramatic emotional swings.

Some commentators link the new NABU special operation to Fedorov’s statement. I think it’s the other way around. Both Fedorov and NABU acted according to their own logic. NABU largely overshadowed the impact of Fedorov’s statement in the media (perhaps fortunately for the former defense minister).

The main “victim” at this point is the “scapegoat” (the person who carried out the unlawful order)—Iryna Mudra (deputy head of the Office of the President of Ukraine, who has already been dismissed from that position). And this is the main lesson for the future for other potential “executors.” NABU’s “hunting” season continues. There will be more cases like this to come. And does it make sense to carry out questionable and, in essence, unlawful orders from high-ranking superiors? It seems to me that after this case, the presidential administrative hierarchy will become less controllable and far less effective. And everyone will be wondering: Who else is “under NABU’s watch” (under surveillance)? And is it worth risking one’s own neck for the sins and interests of high-ranking officials?

Back on Tuesday, when the President of Ukraine submitted his nominations for Andriy Sybiga as Minister of Foreign Affairs and Yevhen Khmara as Minister of Defense, it was clear that there were votes in favor of their appointments. Otherwise, the nominations wouldn’t have been submitted in the first place. But the result—312 votes in favor of appointing Yevhen Khmara as Minister of Defense—probably surprised many. That’s far more than expected, especially given the heated conflict surrounding the dismissal of Mykhailo Fedorov from the post of Minister of Defense. There is a widely held view that Fedorov’s video address contributed to this outcome. I don’t think that was the main reason for such a massive vote in favor of the new defense minister. And this was not a vote for Zelenskyy or against Fedorov; it was a vote for combat general Yevhen Khmara, who is highly respected both in the Ukrainian military and in parliament; it was an expression of respect for the military, and a desire to ensure that we have a fully empowered defense minister during this escalation of the war. And it is very likely that many deputies were genuinely outraged by the calls from some protesters to vote against Khmara. This is precisely where the opposite effect kicked in.

But for some reason, I was reminded that three years ago, 338 lawmakers voted to appoint Rustem Umerov as defense minister. And how are they treating him now?

Sic transit gloria mundi (“Thus passes worldly glory”). Everyone needs to remember this—ministers (both former and current), lawmakers, and even presidents.

Source