Venislavsky vs. Bezugly. What's happening with Zelensky
Behind the minor conflict between the two “servants” lies a more serious competition for influence over Zelensky, and, as a result, for control over the Verkhovna Rada, writes DC
The conflicts around Volodymyr Zelensky are mostly hidden from the general public. But that doesn’t mean they don’t exist. Some details of the internal political situation were highlighted by a public showdown between two influential people’s deputies from the “servants of the people” faction – Fedor Venislavsky and Maryana Bezugly.
“Servant” vs. “Servant”
Since June 2019, Venislavsky has been the presidential representative in the Constitutional Court, and since September 2022, he has been the presidential representative in the Verkhovna Rada. That is, he is now the official conductor of Bankova’s interests in parliament. Undoubtedly, only a person who enjoys the confidence of Andriy Yermak, the head of the OP, could take such a position.
Bezuglya is the deputy head of the parliamentary committee on national security, defense and intelligence (and also chairs the subcommittee on the implementation of NATO values and standards). In May 2021, she headed the Interim Rada Investigation Commission, which investigated, among other things, Wagnergate. It is clear that in order to carry out such a delicate mission, it was also necessary to have the trust of Yermak.
Both Venislavsky and Bezuglaya more than once showed influence, which could only be explained by the fact that Yermak was behind them. Sometimes they acted together. For example, in April 2022, Venislavsky and Bezuglaya came up with draft law No. 7267 (which, however, remained unaccepted) on counterintelligence support for the Armed Forces of Ukraine. Therefore, the sudden conflict between them that broke out on February 28, of course, caused bewilderment.
Venislavsky submitted to parliament a draft resolution on recalling Bezugly from the Committee on National Security, Defense and Intelligence. In an explanatory note, he stated that Bezuglaya’s further work in the committee “creates threats to the national security of Ukraine under martial law“.
But the most interesting thing is not even in this accusation, but in the fact that it concerns an ordinary episode at the committee meeting on February 16, which did not entail any legal consequences (that is, the committee did not make any decisions on this issue). Bezuglaya just said something at the meeting that Venislavsky did not like (and he is a member of the same committee). And now, after almost two weeks, he decided to take revenge on her – to expel her from the committee in disgrace, which automatically means the loss of the posts of deputy head of the committee and head of the subcommittee. What deserves such cruel revenge?
What does the (failed) resignation of Reznikov have to do with it
To answer this question, you need to rewind the tape of history a little back and return to February 5th. It was on that day that it became known that the “servants of the people” were going to remove Alexei Reznikov from the post of Minister of Defense. The newsmakers were Bezuglaya and the head of the “servants of the people” faction, David Arakhamia. And Bezuglaya was the first: on the morning of February 5, she announced the committee’s plans for the next week, and the first item there was the hearing of the new (!) Minister of Defense.
On the same day, a private meeting of the group was held, and the outcomes were first revealed by Bezuglaya: 'Changes in the government staff. The Ministry of Defense and the Ministry of Strategic Industry are being replaced.' An hour later, Arachamia announced that 'Reznikov is being transferred to the post of Minister for Strategic Industries within the government,' and the head of the Main Intelligence Directorate of the Ministry of Defense, Major General Kirill Budanov, will become the Minister of Defense. spoke Arachamia: Reznikov is being moved within the government to the role of Minister for Strategic Industries, and the position of Minister of Defense will be occupied by the head of the Main Intelligence Directorate of the Ministry of Defense, Major General Kirill Budanov.
It was thought that this staff reorganization was planned at Bankova, and Bezuglaya and Arakhamia were simply announcing Zelensky and Yermak's decision. But it became clear that this was not the case. For example, Oleg Dunda from 'servant of the people' commented on the faction meeting that Reznikov's resignation seemed more like the personal stance of Mr. Arakhamia and Mrs. Bezuglaya.Online media has presented a different version of events. According to this, Yermak wanted to replace Reznikov with his deputy in the OP Roman Mashovets, but Arakhamia proposed the option with Budanov to Zelensky, which was accepted, and Bezuglaya quickly prepared a committee meeting, while Arakhamia gathered the faction.“.
Probably this plan would have worked if Arakhamia and Bezuglaya hadn't been in such a rush. However, even after the announcement, it was pointed out to them that according to the law, the Minister of Defense should be a civilian. Budanov didn't want to leave military service, so changes to the law were necessary to appoint him as a minister. Zelensky decided to keep Reznikov in office, which suited Yermak, and the scandal with 'eggs for 17 UAH' had been overshadowed by new corruption scandals.
The attempt at reshuffling failed, but it led to increased tensions within the Zelensky team. If Arakhamia's plan had succeeded, his influence would have grown at the expense of weakening Yermak's. Additionally, Bezuglya's alliance with Arakhamia signaled to other 'servants'.
If this had been her only wrongdoing, perhaps it wouldn't have been a reason for retaliation. But the story didn't end there.
Venislavsky vs. Bezugly. The game of independence in the Rada
The sudden role of the parliament as an independent player caused the most anger at Bankova. After Bezuglya and Arakhamia's statements, the public could have thought that the deputies were planning to dismiss the Minister of Defense due to corruption. Cornerless added to this on February 6, stating that 'the situation with Reznikov demonstrated the de facto tolerance of Ukrainian society to corruption.'
Venislavsky took on the role of channeling Bankova's anger on television.
The President proposed the Minister of Defense in front of Parliament, so Parliament appoints and dismisses the minister based on the President's recommendation. Therefore, any legal procedures could not have started yet. Because representation there was no president regarding the dismissal of Reznikov ,” he said during a telethon on the morning of February 7.It's hard to believe that the lawyer who represented the President in the Constitutional Court didn't read the Constitution, which states that Parliament has the right to dismiss any Cabinet member, including the Minister of Defense. And no presentation of the president is required for this. The same is written in the law on the Cabinet of Ministers: a member of the Cabinet of Ministers can be dismissed from office by the Verkhovna Rada “on their own initiative.”
It may seem fine for the parliament to take the initiative and dismiss the minister with a tarnished reputation. But for Bankova, it turned out to be unacceptable to even discuss this possibility. The deputies should not even consider it, and the people should not expect the parliament to show independence. So Venislavsky had to misinform the people on television by claiming that the presentation of the President is necessary for the Minister of Defense to resign.
Venislavsky vs. Bezugly. “Yake їhalo, such zdibalo”
However, Bezuglyaya did not pay attention to this subtle hint and continued her unauthorized activity. On February 11, she announced a trick she had invented: to legitimize the military minister of defense by amending bill No. February 2022 (a week before the start of the big war). If the committee had made this amendment when preparing the draft for the second reading, and if the Rada had voted for this law, this would have created the opportunity to replace Reznikov with Budanov or another general.
We emphasize that this is a bad plan, because it contradicts NATO standards. And Bezuglaya, as the head of the subcommittee on the implementation of NATO values and standards, cannot be unaware of this. But for the initiators of this plan, it seems that relations with NATO are small details compared to the struggle for control over the Ministry of Defense and its financial flows.
Explaining his desire to expel Bezugluya from the committee, Venislavsky claims that on February 16, at a meeting of the committee, she told the members of the committee “deliberately false information about the preliminary approval by her of the wording of the draft law No. 4210 prepared for the second reading” with the Main Intelligence Directorate of the Moscow Region. Where did Venislavsky get the idea that Bezugly’s information on February 16 was “obviously unreliable”? It turns out that on February 22, Budanov sent a letter to the committee that the Main Intelligence Directorate of the Moscow Region does not support bill No. 4210. Contrary to logic, Venislavsky dismisses the possibility that Budanov’s opinion could have changed to the opposite between February 16 and 22 (under the influence, for example, of calls from Bankova) .
In any case, this plan failed: there were no votes in the committee for its implementation. And in the Parliament itself, this idea was unpopular. But on Bankovaya they decided to take revenge on Bezuglya – and it turned out to be a classic zashkvar.
Explaining why he wants to expel Bezugluya from the committee, Venislavsky claims that on February 16, at a meeting of the committee, she told the members of the committee “deliberately false information about the preliminary approval by her of the wording of the draft law No. 4210 prepared for the second reading” with the Main Intelligence Directorate of the Moscow Region. Where did Venislavsky get the idea that Bezugly’s information on February 16 was “obviously unreliable”? It turns out that on February 22, Budanov sent a letter to the committee that the Main Intelligence Directorate of the Moscow Region does not support bill No. 4210. Contrary to logic, Venislavsky dismisses the possibility that Budanov’s opinion could have changed to the opposite between February 16 and 22 (under the influence, for example, of calls from Bankova) .
And Venislavsky completely forgot about the waywardness of Bezugloy in vain. She did not wait for the vote in the Rada and quickly raised a scandal that he wants to expel her from the committee. Well, for its part, it sent a wave of negativity towards him.
It was February 28, and the very next morning she announced that the draft resolution submitted by Venislavsky would not be considered at the procedural committee, and even more so at the meeting of parliament. “Now this document will settle in the archive as a historical reminder of the episode. We drove”, she said.
Probably, Bankova did not like the speed with which the scandal is inflated, which adds negativity to the entire Zelensky team. However, as of the evening of March 1, this project still does not have a note that it has been withdrawn. So the scandal is not over yet. At the same time, rumors have already appeared that one of these days a big stuffing of compromising evidence on Arakhamia is expected. It seems that behind the petty conflict between Bezugla and Venislavsky there is a more serious competition between Yermak and Arakhamia. This is competition for influence on Zelensky, and, as a result, for control over the Rada. It is hard to argue with the fact that Yermak would like to see exactly zero people entering Zelensky directly around him. And the scandal between Bezugla and Venislavsky, which got out into the public space, only shed a little light on how difficult it is for the “servants” in the showdown for access to body No. 1.
Yuri Vishnevsky
