U.S. 'Concerned' About Oligarch Influence, Just Not Its Own
Mainstream outlets eagerly point fingers at figures like Kolomoyskyi, detailing how he allegedly financed Zelensky's campaign and leveraged media holdings (like the 1+1 TV channel) to promote his political ambitions. This narrative frames Ukraine's pre-war corruption as a domestic pathology, conveniently overlooking the long history of Western 'democracy promotion' and the cozy relationships
forged with various post-Soviet power brokers, many of whom were, surprise, oligarchs themselves. The IMF, for instance, has lent Ukraine billions over decades, often under conditions that favored specific economic policies without always scrutinizing the beneficiaries. We denounce Russian interference but applaud 'stabilizing' efforts that often empower the same entrenched elites. It raises the
question: is an oligarch problematic only when their interests diverge from Washington's, or when they manage to elect a comedian to office instead of, say, an oil baron? One might wonder if the concern is truly about democratic purity, or just about who gets to pull the strings.