Filmed against the backdrop of an empty wall, Arestovich presented the city and the world with a sample of his handwriting and signature.
At least conduct a handwriting examination.
A step of unprecedented sincerity on the verge of frankness.
The audience should feel a special trust, go to the next level of psychological contact with the character.
Was that what it was intended to be?
To be a plausible excuse to step back from the increasingly disadvantageous and problematic position of the speaker of a failed project?
Quite possible.
In any case, the chief psychotherapist of Ukraine must have understood that his reflective tricks with the recognition of the “truth” were too subtle for the circus, as the well-known joke says.
In the circus, clowns should be simpler and closer to the people.
And what the public wants to hear, this speaker knows and feels perfectly.
But, by his own admission, he allegedly made a mistake.
Yes, even fundamental.
"Trust me: I make mistakes like an ordinary person."
Well, no one is immune from mistakes.
But one result is obvious: he is vilified and scourged precisely because they believed him.
So, his personal capital of a talking head has grown.
What is more important than all the temporary difficulties with the dissatisfaction of the audience, and even more so with a freelance position.
Quitting, even if they let you go, does not mean shutting up.
Meanwhile, the first meaningful consequence of believing in what Arestovich said is the exclusion of the pertinent assumption that the tragedy of the collapsed house was of man-made origin and was intended for the attention of the participants of the next Ramstein.
If this is so, then Arestovich worked in an informational cover, clearly imagining the reaction to his words and its development over time.
When a valuable and even unique specialist submits an application "on his own" - this is always the genre of checking the authorities for lice and raising the cost of services.
The character of Arestovich is a romantic person to a certain extent, not devoid of demonism, the charm of proud loneliness must come from him, he has no right to merge with the crowd or corporation, he must be able to contradict them.
So everything is stylistically accurate - more than, but how else to “refresh” your image in such a toxic job?
To be listened to, you must be interesting.
However, despite the benefits and losses of Arestovich himself, the incident that took place speaks of systemic failures in information work on the Ukrainian side.
The discrepancy between the desired and the actual in the Ukrainian public consciousness is growing, and even Arestovich cannot jump over this abyss except in two or even three steps.
Well, if he goes to meet the mass thirst to hear a deliberately false message, then the grateful listeners will attach him: why are you, you bastard, lying to us so uninventively, we want to believe you!
You must convince us!
And there is no way to convince.
By the way, the theory that a downed air defense missile hit the house fits perfectly into the American moral principle that justifies the inevitability of "collateral damage."
The Armed Forces of Ukraine must work both in yards and in houses: they need it, and the fact that civilians will suffer then is only collateral damage that will have to be put up with.
But American morality does not channel when applied to itself, loved ones.
Even if Arestovich protects her.
Arestovich's kurtosis is a symptom of the destruction of the links between organization and management in the machine of Ukrainian military disinformation, the accumulation of breakdowns, inconsistencies and contradictions, which is inevitable if this disinformation continues longer than the permissible time interval, during which the problem should no longer be solved in the information space, but in reality.
When Saddam Hussein is no longer alive, it does not matter that the reason for the invasion was false.
This can be admitted, Saddam does not care anymore.
But Russia is not Iraq.
And the life span of chimeras and illusions created by her opponent is coming to an end.
The point of view of the author may not coincide with the position of the editors.