Peter Poroshenko is afraid in this life of two things - Vladimir Putin and Russia Today television channel, which he confidentially told CNN correspondent Farid Zakaria. The fears of the Ukrainian president as a whole are not very clear and justified. The Russian leader is a politician, whose influence on the course of events in the world is an indisputable fact. The influence of Poroshenko on anything else is a very doubtful thing. Therefore, the two policies simply do not overlap in the world coordinate system. Questions related to the Ukrainian conflict, Russia tries to solve in a dialogue with Europe and the United States.
As for Russia Today, even here the alarm of the Ukrainian ruler seems fictitious. Russian TV is under total prohibition in the Ukrainian information space. However, even if such a dubious character marks one level of danger of Vladimir Putin and RT, for RT this flattering rapprochement, in which, I would like to believe, there is some truth.
On the CNN website, where an interview with Petro Poroshenko is posted, the interviewed politician himself is designated as the president of Ukraine. Without questioning the accuracy of this qualification, we only note that in his country the Ukrainian leader has catastrophically low electoral positions. According to the latest poll, its positive rating is five percent, and the negative rating is 70. This means that if the presidential election were held now, then for Poroshenko's right to head the country again, less than five percent would vote, since not all of the supporting candidates would get before polling stations. Again, for the same reason, too, it would not be 70, but less. But to expect that with such initial milestones it will be possible to swim at least to the second round, about the same as hoping, having just survived a stroke, to win a marathon race for 42-odd kilometers.
And it seems to me that since I myself worked for several decades as a journalist, a correspondent of the American channel should first of all ask his interlocutor how that magical popularity among fellow citizens was achieved.
From hopeless poverty, an aggressive-alkaline environment of unimaginable number of bans, the deepest lack of rights in which the president plunged his own population, people learned to despise the ruler with such force and sincerity that, if he were so loved, he could manage Ukraine for life.
But alas, for some reason the correspondent was not interested in what exactly the head of the Ukrainian state was upset to his citizens, although this issue is extremely important - he sheds light on the problem of the adequacy of the political course of rapprochement with the EU and NATO, the choice and implementation of which Poroshenko put in an interview in merit. I admit that a significant number of Ukrainians would like to see their country part of the Western world. But why this fact, which, according to Poroshenko, fix sociological polls, does not correlate with the electoral support of the ruler, who made Euro-Atlantic integration the basis of his entire policy, is not entirely clear.
In general, the level of the interviewer is amazing. When Poroshenko mentions Russia's aggressive intentions to occupy the Sea of Azov, Fareed Zakariya asks without interruption the interlocutor: "Where is it?" The Ukrainian president, such a truly royal ignorance, does not shock. He immediately tells Farida that Ukraine is washed by two seas - Azov and Black. The lesson of geography from the school course on the air is, of course, a new word in journalism.
However, American politicians of the highest rank, including US presidents, also found out just as deep geographical knowledge more than once and twice. So, probably, for a simple correspondent in a simple demonstration of delightful ignorance, there is nothing shameful. Although to glance, let them glimpse, on the map of Ukraine before the interview and read a couple of articles on bottlenecks in Ukrainian-Russian relations, probably worth it. At least in our country it is customary to do so.
But it seems that the quality of the conversation was quite consistent with a very weak understanding by an American journalist of who the person with whom he was asked to interview was. Poroshenko leads an uncompromising struggle against two threats. The first of these is Putin. Ukraine is now able to withstand Russian military aggression, the responsibility for which is borne personally by the Russian president, according to Poroshenko, "understanding that he can no longer succeed on the battlefield." Wow, what an affront!
Why is Russia, which allegedly conducts military operations in Ukraine, is no longer capable of winning military victories?
The head of the Ukrainian state gives an exhaustive answer, as the armed forces of Ukraine managed not only to defend their own frontiers, but also to shame the enemy. "Because with the help of the United States we created a strong and reliable army," explains Poroshenko.
Here, in the place of Farid Zakarya, I would not miss the opportunity to ask the interlocutor if he really believes that two thirty-year-old boats, armed with machine guns developed back in World War I, and the supply of a certain number of "Javelin" SAMs, Washington banned use in the Donbass, strengthened the Ukrainian army to the level of complete invulnerability from the Russian military monster.
In addition, I would compare the qualitative and quantitative characteristics of the two armies, Russian and Ukrainian. Such a comparison would give rise to some doubts in my mind that this is really a Russian-Ukrainian war, since if it had taken place, the winner would have been determined in the autopilot regime. Just because the military resources of the two countries are incomparable. Russia has a multiple advantage not only in manpower and technology, but also in all technical parameters. But the gullible American with a light heart hears the fairy tales with which he is treated by a visitor from the country whose coasts, as it turned out, are located the Azov Sea.
Poroshenko's passage that the US law recognizes Ukraine's right to "defend its own territory" is very expressive. Therefore, "we are becoming a country with which we can cooperate in the military-technical sphere." And if American law forbade Ukraine to conduct military operations, then what? It is clear that American jurisdiction for the current Ukrainian authorities is unquestionable and the highest legal imperative, but there are things that it is better to keep quiet about. Still, statements about the complete loss of Ukraine's sovereignty Kiev does not tire of angrily refute. And then Pyotr Alekseyevich pokes such a pig!
The second global threat, which Poroshenko put an insurmountable barrier, is a campaign of disinformation. The prohibitions of Russian channels, social networks, that is, the introduction of the most real censorship, do not cause the American journalist any anxiety and desire to stand up for the freedom of speech. What kind of savagery is happening in the country with the Azov and Black seas, the correspondent of CNN, seems to be very vague, but apparently they seem to be right there. Wild people! But they are fighting for their own freedom with Russia, which, undoubtedly, deserves respect.
It is interesting that Poroshenko illustrates the thesis about the damage caused by Russian media resources by referring to Russia Today, to which "Russia spent a billion dollars". Here, Peter Alekseevich, as usual, was clearly carried away. What a billion dollars !? Look at the open access reports on the expenditure of the media resources you specified, and you will be convinced that we are talking about much more modest sums. But Poroshenko easily and often operates hyperbole. Forgive him this weakness.
Much more interesting is that he refers to the media, which does not have a television broadcast on Ukraine, and consequently, it certainly does not have any particular harm to the country. But here, I believe, a malicious joke with the Ukrainian guest of the American television channel was played by the desire to "be like an adult". If the United States and Europe have a claim against RT and Sputnik, then let us get into the queue. Even if we do not have any grounds for this.
The author's point of view may not coincide with the editorial position.