Ukrainian Political Scientist Exposes The Ukraine Proxy War.

In A New Book, One of Ukraine's top political scientists exposes the truth about Ukraine that has been ignored by the mainstream media

Pictured Above: Zelensky’s Profile As “Person Of The Year” In Time Magazine.

The black and white narrative written about in the mainstream media on Ukraine is completely detached from the situation in the country right now and the complexities of the war.

Now, a new book written by one of Ukraine’s top historians and political scientists, Konstantin Bondarenko, titled “The Joker: The True Story Of Volodymyr Zelensky's rise to power” gives the full story and all of its context behind the Ukraine war, Volodymyr Zelensky and the current Ukranian governments authoritarian trajectory.

The over 500-page-long book takes no prisoners in examining the Russian government, the Ukrainian government, or Western governments and their respective roles in the war and offers an in-depth look into Ukrainian politics and all of the external factors influencing it.

Because of the book’s critical approach to the current Ukrainian government, its author, Konstantin Bondarenko, had sanctions placed on him by the Zelensky government in retaliation for writing it.

I would highly recommend the book for anyone interested in an in-depth and nuanced look into the Ukraine war and Ukrainian politics.

In this article, I will review some of the most important revelations from the book.

The Maidan Coup Exposed.

In the book, Bondarenko offers a scathing exposé of the 2014 Western-backed coup in Ukraine against the country’s democratically elected president, Viktor Yanukovych, which he described as a “controversial event combining elements of a Color Revolution and a coup d’état”.

Bondarenko noted that the reason the West wanted a coup against Yanukovych was not because he was not “willing to meet all the West’s conditions in 2013,” given the fact that he had “preferences for ExxonMobil,” and “allowed Western gas-producing corporations to mine shale gas” but because “he was not willing to fully oppose Russia.”

He noted that:

The West, however, did not want a Ukrainian president who pursued a multi-vector foreign policy; the West needed Ukraine to be anti-Russia, with clear opposition between Kyiv and Moscow. Yanukovych was open to broad cooperation with the West, but he was not willing to confront Russia and China. The West could not accept this ambivalence. The West needed a Ukraine charged for confrontation and even war against Russia, a Ukraine it could use as a tool in the fight against Russia.

He noted that “this was why Western politicians, diplomats, and civil society representatives actively supported the Euromaidan as a mechanism for overthrowing Yanukovych, even going as far as providing financial support for the ‘revolutionary’ process.”

After Yanukovych was overthrown in a violent coup, the U.S. helped install a more U.S.-friendly government in Ukraine.

Bondarenko wrote, “Supported by external forces, these politicians immediately declared that they would follow all the recommendations of Western institutions such as the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank”.

These Western-imposed IMF “reforms” had a dire impact on Ukraine’s economy.

The reforms included “a sharp increase in utility rates, the abolition of benefits for certain categories of the population, and harsh economic measures.”

The U.S.-installed government, Bondarenko notes, “came to power in Ukraine, under the guise of ‘European values,’” but “opened the doors to Western corporations, entirely undermining the concept of sovereignty.”

He compared the U.S.-installed government in Ukraine to U.S.-installed “dictatorial regimes in Latin America and Africa in the second half of the 20th century”.

Some consequences from the U.S.-installed Ukrainian regime and its subsequent Western-backed government led by Petro Poroshenko, listed in the book, include:

• “Ukraine’s GDP shrinking by approximately 17%”.

• The exchange rate going from “8 hryvnias (Ukrainian dollar) to 1 U.S dollar” in 2013 to “23 hryvnias to the dollar” in 2015

• Inflation rising from 24.9% in 2014 to 43.3% in 2015

• a “significant decline in industrial production during the first two years” after the coup, leading to Ukraine losing “its economic cluster that manufactured goods with high added value (machine engineering)”

• “mining and metallurgical complex, energy (coal production), chemicals, food production”, “sustained significant losses”.

• “an increase in unemployment and the emigration of citizens from Ukraine to neighboring countries—primarily to Poland and Russia.”

• “utility rates increasing by 123%, reaching up to 20% of family income” from the IMF introduced policies

Bondarenko wrote that the key tenets of the U.S.-backed Petro Poroshenko regime in Ukraine included:

• “creating an Anti-Russia project”.

• “indulging the interests of the West, primarily the United States”

• “fostering militarism and an aggressive anti-Russian sentiment (like Black Apartheid in South Africa or the experiments in Mobutu’s Zaire)”

• “attempting to maintain the corrupt system that had formed in Ukraine during the 1990s and had survived two Maidans.” (in 2004 and 2014)

“In other words,” Bondarenko wrote, “Poroshenko was essentially building a backward puppet state of the Latin American-African type that hid behind jingoistic patriotic slogans.”

Bondarenko noted that when protests came out in response to the new economic conditions in Ukraine, “The authorities, using the excuse of strained relations with the Russian Federation, tried to present the protests as subversive actions by the Russian intelligence services: anyone expressing discontent was labeled an ‘FSB agent.’”

After the coup of 2014 Bondarenko noted “nationalist groups emerged that were unofficially managed by a special department of the Security Service of Ukraine”, “organizations such as S14, The Right Sector, Tradition and Order, and others”.

He noted that these far-right groups “not only attacked opposition structures, but they also murdered former MP Oleg Kalashnikov and journalist Oleksiy Buzina in April 2015.”

After the coup, Bondarenko wrote, “Everything was immersed in hypocrisy and pharisaism. War, revolution, ‘European principles,’ ‘Western choice,’ ‘decommunization,’ and ‘de-russification’ became a cover for the cynical politics of plundering and selling off the nation’s sovereignty.”

Bondarenko wrote that “After the failures of 2014, an atmosphere of internal protest formed, created by people who felt deceived and abandoned”.

He noted that “Five years later, these people became the electoral base that launched Volodymyr Zelensky’s rise to power”.

How The West Cooped Zelensky

In the 2019 Ukrainian election, Volodymyr Zelensky ran a populist anti-establishment campaign against Petro Poroshenko and the Ukrainian political establishment.

A Comedian and Actor, much of Zelensky’s popularity came from his portrayal of Vasyl Petrovych Holoborodko in the political comedy TV show “Servant of the People”.

The show followed Zelensky’s character, who was a history teacher fed up with corruption in Ukrainian politics, and was elected president.

Much of Zelensky’s anti-establishment image during his presidential campaign was based on the impression people had on his character in the show.

In one episode of the show described by Bondarenko, “Volodymyr Zelensky’s character, President of Ukraine Vasyl Holoborodko, refuses a suggestion from an IMF representative to sell Ukrainian land and gives an impassioned speech, ending with a vulgar remark addressed to the head of the mission.”

This portrayal on TV, along with the fact that the Ukrainian public was fed up with Petro Poroshenko, led Zelensky to win with over 70 percent of the vote in 2019.

Pictured above: Volodymyr Zelensky playing Vasyl Petrovych Holoborodko in “Servant of the People”.

But as Bondarenko noted, “The people were still convinced they were voting for Vasily Petrovich Holoborodko. But that was no longer the case. Reality was too harsh: they were voting for Volodymyr Oleksandrovych Zelensky.”

The reality is that the West needed to co-opt Zelensky early on, for their own geopolitical goals.

Bondarenko noted that in February of 2019, “U.S. State Department Special Representative for Ukraine Kurt Volker and U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine Marie Yovanovitch held meetings with the most popular candidate, Volodymyr Zelensky”.

He noted that “On March 7, U.S. Deputy Secretary of State David Hale held new meetings with the main presidential candidates (including Zelensky). He shared this information at a press conference in Kyiv the same day”.

He wrote that “Some politicians who knew Zelensky and were involved in his presidential campaign at that time claim that the meeting with David Hale clinched Zelensky’s future ‘reprogramming’”.

Bondarenko noted “Zelensky was clearly told about the U.S.’s interests in Ukraine and the need to follow the rules set by the American authorities in Ukraine after Maidan: cooperation with the IMF, continuing the confrontation with Russia, sabotaging the Minsk agreements, and protecting the interests of transnational corporations, among other things.”

He also noted that “Mr. Hale also provided arguments to convince Zelensky that sanctions for not adhering to the ‘rules of the game’ would be excruciating and that the U.S. would find levers to influence the will of the Ukrainian people during the election.”

Contrary to his character on TV, the real Zelensky caved to Western pressure almost immediately. Bondarenko wrote that a former state department employee said Zelensky buckled to U.S. demands.

Bondarenko wrote after this, “Volodymyr Zelensky first realized that he would not be able to be Vasily Holoborodko. The world of politics has its own rules, which cannot be subjected to cinematic devices.”

Early on, Western media were instrumental in creating the image of Zelensky.

In March of 2019, Bondarenko wrote that Zelensky “met with foreign journalists and diplomats” in a meeting “organized by Ukrainian oligarch Viktor Pinchuk”, who is “the most integrated member of the Ukrainian establishment in the global financial and political elite” with “close contacts with the Rothschild family, Bill Clinton, and many influential circles in America, France, Britain, and Canada”.

During this meeting, “Pinchuk effectively legitimized Zelensky in the eyes of influential Western representatives”.

After Zelensky’s election, Bondarenko noted, “Ukraine remained a dependent state, without its own identity, and was mainly governed from Washington. The United States played a decisive role in staffing appointments, foreign policy, finance, the fight against corruption (more accurately, control over corruption schemes), the pharmaceutical industry, national security, and defense.”

His first priorities were effectively at the behest of the West, as Bondarenko wrote, “The tasks that Zelensky’s team declared as top priorities (lifting the moratorium on land sales, activating the land market, public declaration of citizen income and spending, etc.) were in fact tasks Ukraine was assigned either by the International Monetary Fund or large multinational corporations.”

This was a large part of the reason the United States allowed Zelensky to win the election in 2019. As Bondarenko wrote, “Poroshenko fully relied on his U.S. curators, believing that the State Department would see him as the only viable candidate to lead the country as the main outpost of American policy in Eurasia” and “could not believe that the State Department would view him with indifference and reach the same agreement with Zelensky.”

Bondarenko wrote that “Essentially, the ‘controlling stake’ in the Zelensky project ended up in the hands of external players,” including “transnational corporations and influential political circles in the U.S., EU, and Israel”.

However, there was one issue between Zelensky and the West.

One of his main policy platforms was to implement the Minsk Accords, a peace plan that would end the fighting that erupted in Eastern Ukraine between pro-Russia Ukrainians and Ukrainian nationalists after the 2014 coup.

This was a large part of what led Zelensky to victory, as Bondarenko noted, “Zelensky’s main support came primarily from the east and south of Ukraine, regions that were eager to see a rapid end to the war and a stop to the experiments with language and humanitarian issues. He was seen as ‘the guy from Krivyi Rih’ – cosmopolitan, successful, and not inclined to nationalist rhetoric or actions. This appealed to the Russian-speaking population of the east and south”.

This became a “paradoxical situation” for Zelensky, given that he had “secretly signed on to continue the pro-West policies,” which did not want an end to the war in Donbas.

As I have written about extensively, and as Bondarenko noted in the book, Zelensky was threatened by “Andriy Biletsky, leader of the National Corps far-right party and former commander of the Azov regiment” to not end the war in the Donbas and withdraw troops.

However, after this, Zelensky, along with Russia, France, and Germany, met in Normandy and agreed to implement the Minsk Accords and do a full ceasefire in the Donbas region.

Pictured above: Normandy meeting between Ukraine, Russia, France, and Germany on the Minsk Accords.

They were never fully implemented, however. Bondarenko wrote that “Angela Merkel later remarked that Zelensky was a tough opponent when it came to implementing the Minsk Agreements. She was under the impression that Zelensky did not want to implement the Agreements and, in fact, believed that they were unfeasible because they were unpopular in Ukraine.” (and apparently because he was under threat from the far-right).

Blocking Peace At Every Turn

Pictured Above: Zelensky’s Meeting With Boris Johnson in April of 2022.

Bondarenko writes about the well-documented instance of Boris Johnson blocking the peace agreement between Russia and Ukraine at Istanbul, Turkey, in April of 2022.

Bondarenko noted that “During his meeting with Zelensky, the British Prime Minister was generous with his compliments of the Ukrainian president. In particular, he noted that Ukraine, contrary to all expectations, had turned the Russian troops out of Kyiv and performed the greatest military feat of the 21st century”.

Bondarenko wrote about the well-documented instance of Boris Johnson convincing Zelensky to abandon the peace talks and “just fight” instead.

Bondarenko noted that “The West decided to put an end to the negotiation process and opted for a military victory of the Ukrainian Armed Forces (as a tool of Western influence) over Russia. In other words, the “let’s just fight” position was not Johnson’s personal whim; he was merely voicing the collective position of the West.”

He noted that “Former German Chancellor Schröder said in an interview with Die Weltwoche that during the negotiations in Istanbul, Ukraine and Russia were ready to sign a peace agreement, but the negotiations were sabotaged by ‘powerful forces.’”

There were, however, several other instances of peace talks being blocked, with apparent Western involvement.

Before the Istanbul talks in March of 2022 “one of the members of the Ukrainian negotiation group was banker Denys Kyreev,” whose “presence in the negotiation group was not accidental” because his closer ties to Russia, “was used by the Main Intelligence Directorate of Ukraine’s Ministry of Defense to create direct unofficial contact between Ukraine and Russia.”

Shortly after this, Kyreev was “detained and shot” by the “various intelligence agencies led by the Security Service of Ukraine (SBU)”.

Given the close ties between U.S. intelligence and the SBU, this instance raises questions about U.S. involvement in this assassination, seemingly to block peace talks.

Even after the Istanbul talks, Bondarenko noted that “throughout April, May, and early June, the parties continued to discuss the draft agreement via video calls at the level of delegates and working groups. According to the newspaper Welt am Sonntag, the sides had agreed on almost all points: Ukraine accepted neutrality, non-alignment, and a non-nuclear status, while Russia agreed to provide security guarantees for Ukraine, which would be ensured by the permanent members of the UN Security Council.”

In August of 2022, Bondarenko noted that “UN Secretary-General António Guterres and Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan arrived in Ukraine” in order to meet with Zelensky and “brought with them proposals previously agreed upon with the Russian side.”

The proposal included

• Recognizing Crimea as Russian

• Ukraine adopts a neutral treaty of cooperation

• The separatist regions in the Donbas will be recognized.

• Holding a UN-monitored referendum in the Kherson and Zaporizhzhia regions.

• Ukraine will be given a neutral non-aligned status and security guarantees from all UN member states.

• Reducing Armaments and military personnel in Ukraine.

• a UN peacekeeping contingent deployed in Ukraine to protect its borders, nuclear power plants, ports, and airports.

• Parliamentary election held in Ukraine

• Presidential elections held in Ukraine

• Ukraine’s constitution will be amended to ensure full transparency and equal rights for Russian-speaking citizens.

Bondarenko noted that “Volodymyr Zelensky rejected the proposal without even commenting on the document. The meeting lasted only 40 minutes, and immediately after it, the Ukrainian side shelled territories of Crimea and the Belgorod Region, demonstrating their attitude to the proposed compromise.” A decision likely made at the behest of the West.

Bondarenko noted that “On September 30, the National Security and Defense Council of Ukraine, chaired by Volodymyr Zelensky, decided to cease any negotiations with Russia.” He wrote that “After making the decision to cease negotiations, Zelensky stated that Ukraine would still be open to negotiations with Russia, but not with Vladimir Putin. It would have to be a different Russian president.” This again was likely a decision the West was pushing for.

In March of 2023, as Bondarenko noted, “Chinese President Xi Jinping visited Moscow. About a month before the visit, during the Munich Security Conference, China’s Foreign Minister Wang Yi stated that China would soon present its concept for a peaceful resolution to the Russia-Ukraine conflict. On February 24, 2023, China officially presented its plan regarding Ukraine.”

The Chinese peace proposal included

1. Respecting the sovereignty of all countries.

2. Rejecting the Cold War mentality.

3. Ceasing hostilities.

4. Resuming peace negotiations.

5. Resolving the humanitarian crisis.

6. Protecting civilians and prisoners of war.

7. Ensuring the safety of nuclear power plants.

8. Reducing strategic risks.

9. Promoting grain exports.

10. Ceasing unilateral sanctions.

11. Maintaining stability in industrial and supply chains.

12. Supporting post-conflict recovery.

Bondarenko wrote that “According to available data, unofficially confirmed by sources in the Ukrainian Ministry of Foreign Affairs, while in Moscow, Xi Jinping considered the possibility of a personal meeting with Volodymyr Zelensky in Warsaw, where the Chinese leader was prepared to arrive on March 22”, source in Poland also confirmed that “everything was ready for Xi’s unannounced visit to Warsaw on March 22.”.

He wrote that “A team of protocol officers from the foreign ministries of Ukraine and China arrived in Warsaw and began preparations for the meeting.”

But “at the last moment, Zelensky stated that he could discuss only one document with Xi Jinping—the Ukrainian Peace Plan.”

The Ukrainian peace plan was a plan created by Zelensky, which included things such as Russia ceding all territory back to Ukraine, including Crimea, something Russia would never accept.

Bondarenko noted that “This was perceived in China as a démarche by the Ukrainian side, and the meeting was canceled.”

This again was likely done at the behest of the West because “the U.S. and the EU had long been aiming to prevent China and its projects from gaining a foothold Ukraine, as well as stop it from strengthening Chinese interests in Eastern Europe” as well as the fact that “The Chinese plan (with its emphasis on resolving the conflict at the negotiating table) was an antidote of the Western plans, which were in favor of Ukraine winning the war on the battlefield.”

As Bondarenko noted, “the war became a conflict to prevent Ukraine from becoming a Russian colony, as well as a conflict to ensure Ukraine’s right to become an American colony.”

He’s Our Son Of A Bitch.

Most importantly, Konstantin Bondarenko writes extensively about how Zelensky’s image was whitewashed by the Western media, ignoring the domestic reality in Ukraine.

As he noted,:

Zelensky began traveling abroad with increasing frequency. The West worked on shaping Zelensky’s image, trying to create a figure somewhere between a ‘new Churchill’ and a ‘new Che Guevara.’ This flattered Zelensky, who was accustomed to flamboyant shows, applause, and theatrical performances. He was back in his element. Grand speeches before parliaments. Glorious photos with the most influential figures in global politics. Appearances at the opening of prestigious festivals and competitions. Zelensky became part of the ‘world of glamour.’ He was not merely popular; he had become the latest fashion. ‘The Zelensky Fashion’ became a part of the winter-spring 2022/2023 season.

He wrote that :

Time magazine named Zelensky “Person of the Year.” Bookstores were filled with books about Zelensky in every language under the sun. Comics appeared with Zelensky as the main character. Zelensky was portrayed as a positive hero fighting a “refined evil”—Putin. Hollywood was considering making a film about Zelensky. Small figurines of Zelensky were sold in souvenir shops in Europe and the U.S., and they sold out very quickly. Zelensky became an element of pop culture. Zelensky appeared at the 64th annual Grammy Awards. He spoke at the opening of the Cannes Film Festival in May 2022. He spoke at the opening of the Berlin Film Festival in February 2022. Sean Penn came to Ukraine and gave his Oscar statuette to Zelensky.

He wrote that “contracts were signed with more than 60 Western lobbying and PR agencies, whose tasks included arranging pompous publications in leading Western media, blocking negative articles, and organizing meetings and speeches” for Zelensky.

However, the Zelensky created in the Western press versus the real Zelensky were starkly different.

Bondarenko noted that “parliamentarian Oleksandr Dubinsky testified in court that between February and November 2022, a special SBU concentration camp existed, through which more than 300 people passed.”

He wrote that “The existence of a torture chamber in the SBU building during the early months of the war was confirmed by several individuals who had been in the hands of particularly zealous torturers, among whom were three members of parliament, two political experts, and one journalist.”

He wrote that the Ukrainian government completely took over the information flow through TV writing:

Taking advantage of the situation, the authorities decided to subject the information space to a thorough cleaning and establish harsh censorship on television. Most TV channels began airing the same program, The Unified Marathon, created under the control of the President’s Office and broadcast on all TV channels. Access to the airwaves was strictly regulated and controlled to avoid sabotage. Blacklists were created of speakers who were banned from appearing on the air. The channels controlled by Petro Poroshenko retained their relative independence, but the ex-president chose not to oppose Zelensky to avoid being labeled a Kremlin agent, so the programs shown on Poroshenko’s channels were not very different in tone and rhetoric from The Unified Marathon.

Following this, Bondarenko noted that:

Severe censorship was introduced in the media. A special body was established in the NSDC called the Center for Countering Disinformation, responsible for interpreting “correct” and “incorrect” interpretations of events. Based on complaints from the Center, the Security Service could initiate criminal cases against unwanted journalists, bloggers, or political analysts, or raise the issue of banning certain publications. Anything contradicting the official position was labeled as ‘Kremlin narratives.’ Dozens of internet sites posting ‘harmful’ content were shut down, and Facebook and YouTube were subjected to censorship (even for seemingly innocent ‘likes’). In 2024, Ukraine considered banning the Telegram messenger and social network, although at that time it only banned public officials in government institutions from using Telegram.

He also noted that there were major crackdowns on the use of the Russian language, writing:

New language policies excluded millions of Russian-speaking citizens from the law: Russian schools were closed, monuments to Russian writers began to be dismantled, streets and squares, as well as towns, were renamed, and the Russian language was systematically eradicated—despite Article 10 of the Ukrainian Constitution, which guarantees free advancement of the Russian language. As mentioned before, Zelensky decided to put the Constitution on hold, although it was precisely due to the support of Russian-speaking citizens that Zelensky became president in 2019. The hypocrisy of the situation was evident in the fact that while persecuting citizens for using the Russian language, burning Russian-language books, and banning the use of Russian in schools (even during breaks), Zelensky and his entourage continued to use Russian in everyday life (as did his predecessor, Poroshenko).

Furthermore, there were major crackdowns on the free press, as Bondarenko wrote:

Several journalists and political experts were forced to emigrate—every day, their numbers grew. Starting in mid-2023, a new wave of Ukrainian emigration began, whereby those who emigrated mainly comprised the middle class, business representatives, and intellectuals, who were for the most part patriotic but unable to tolerate the outright kakistocracy, incompetent, and corrupt government in their native country. Under the banner of patriotic slogans, the authorities were implementing blatantly comprador schemes in Ukraine, sending their own citizens ‘to the slaughter’ while silencing anyone who dared to speak out.

Bondarenko compared the Western whitewashing of Zelensky to America’s tradition of whitewashing dictators that serve their interests, writing, “The West discreetly closed its eyes to the lawlessness going on in Ukraine. There is a popular apocryphal story among historians about a remark Franklin Roosevelt allegedly made to Nicaraguan dictator Anastasio Somoza: ‘He may be a son-of-a-bitch, but he’s our son-of-a-bitch.’ Over the past 80 years, American policy principles have not changed, and Biden could proudly repeat the words of his distant predecessor and party colleague, this time in reference to Ukraine and its president.”

Bondarenko noted that “By 2023, it became clear that the Zelensky who came to power amid expectations of greater freedom and was seen as something positive and fresh in the stale system of Ukrainian political life had turned into a morose dictator and despot, a fanatic ready to imprison all dissenters and suspects, while also sending all Ukrainian citizens to the frontlines.”

Bondarenko noted that the only similarity between Zelensky and Churchill is them being unpopular near the end of war years, writing

Churchill’s Conservative Party was voted out of power in July 1945, two months after the end of fighting in Europe and before the surrender in the Pacific. Churchill seemed out of touch with British voters, who were disturbed by his distaste for social reform after six years of war. Zelensky has at times, like Churchill, become a hero outside of his country while his standing is diminishing at home. Where he once merely kowtowed to the far right during the Minsk process, he now seems to be embracing some of its leading figures, like the Azov commander Denys Prokopenko. And while it is not uncommon during wartime for democracies to restrict the press, the Zelensky Administration is doing so to such an extent that some claim journalism in the country has devolved into a ‘marathon of propaganda.’

Read The Full Book.

The official narrative around Ukraine has been one of the most extensive propaganda campaigns in history.

For an actual history of Ukraine and the current situation, as well as the hidden truth about the Ukrainian government, I would highly recommend reading the entire book “The Joker: The True Story Of Volodymyr Zelensky's Rise To Power” by Konstantin Bondarenko.

---

Note to readers: The Dissident is a reader-supported outlet. If you liked this article, consider becoming a paid subscriber.