New cabinet draws criticism from both pro-Western, pro-Russian forces

Ukraine’s newly
elected Cabinet of Ministers drew criticism on Mar. 4 from both pro-Western and
pro-Russian forces, who accused the president of capitulating to each other’s
camps. MPs with the neoliberal Voice faction demonstratively left the session
hall – ahead of the vote to approve the ministers – in what it described as a
protest against procedural violations, as well as against officials who have
ties to Russia, among other reasons.

In particular, the
nominated health minister, Illia Yemets, had served in the same post in
2010-2011 under the Yanukovych administration, as pointed out by Voice MP
Oleksandra Ustinova from the parliamentary tribune. The nominated youth and
sports minister, Vadym Hutsayt, has business partners who serve as officers in
the Russian Federation army, she said. The nominated finance minister, Ihor
Umanskiy, approved the laundering of state funds – earmarked for Kyiv’s leading
children’s hospital – to companies controlled by Oleksandr Yanukovych, the
former president’s son, she alleged. The nominated social policy minister,
Maryna Lazebna, was appointed in 2013 by former President Yanukovych to head
the State Employment Service.

Meanwhile,
pro-Russian forces insisted that the new cabinet merely consists of the same
“Soros agents, Poroshenko officials and Nazis,” in the words of one pro-Putin
politician. The newly appointed minister overseeing the cabinet, Oleh
Nemchinov, served as a volunteer soldier in the war in Donbas and supported the
re-election campaign former President Poroshenko, pointed out on his Telegram
page Andriy Portnov, a lawyer who actively advocates the interests of former
President Yanukovych and his entourage.

Zenon Zawada: With its new cabinet, the Zelensky
administration is extending its policy of not committing itself exclusively to
pro-Western or pro-Russian positions, but in the alleged national interest. Its
core policies can be identified as pro-E.U. integration, ending the war in
Donbas and digitalizing state services for efficiency. To its detriment, the
Zelensky administration is plagued by subservience to the reckless billionaire
Ihor Kolomoisky, an IMF skeptic who is trying to retake Privatbank; inertia in
judicial reform and fighting corruption; and an element of NATO skepticism
(though it’s continuing to fulfill its commitments to NATO). Its economic
record is dismal, with no new ministers in this field yet to emerge.

We view these
personnel changes as insignificant in the grand scheme of the ultimate goal for
Ukraine, which is for the nation to become a rule of law society integrated in
Western institutions. The elements necessary to achieve that goal – a
consistent vision for the country’s Euro-Atlantic future, a consistent strategy
to achieve that vision, effective governing bodies to implement the strategy
and the will to defend tough decisions made by state bodies – are utterly
lacking in Zelensky. He even lacks the most basic political strategy, which is
to identify his core electorate and take measures to satisfy it. In his actions
and appointments, Zelensky has not protected the interests of urban,
southeastern Ukrainians, which is widely recognized to have been the backbone
of his support that is gradually eroding.

What’s especially revealing about this episode is Zelensky’s obvious
need to cater to the concerns of Kolomoisky, his preoccupation with his poll
ratings that continue to deteriorate, and his inability to develop effective
policies and commit to them, regardless of the opposition they encounter. Even
if his new righthand man, Andriy Yermak, is able to reach a peace deal to halt
the fighting in Donbas, it’s apparent that Zelensky doesn’t have the will to
deal with the furious opposition that will inevitably surface from pro-Western
forces. Under this scenario, a political crisis is inevitable, possibly as
early as this year, which has the potential to sweep Zelensky out of the
presidency, possibly in the form of his resignation.