Quote:
Originally Posted by Huntingwhale
From what I have understood, Reznikov had overview of a few areas but seemed to have turned a blind eye to a few dirty dealings. Mostly it was because he had a few run ins with media in which Zelensky wasn't a fan of. I don't think he himself was that "dirty" per say, but Ukraine joining the EU means they have to at least give the impression that each and every area is being looked at and nobody is safe if that standard isn't met. Ukraine needs all the good PR it can get to keep funds/weapons flowing in, and if Zelensky thinks that keeping Reznikov on board impedes that, than I have no issue with him being dismissed.
I don't know anything about the new guy and thought that Reznikov mostly did a good job. Hopefully this move works out and can keep the momentum going.
|
I don't think anyone, pro-Ukrainian or otherwise, would deny that corruption hasn't been an ongoing issue since the Soviet days. It's the same for practically every ex-communist state in Europe. Some have been able to reduce it, with EU aspirations being the driver for some. I think that was a big part of the decision here. Ukraine wants close ties to the West and when their defense is heavily dependent on Western aid, they have to be hard on corruption. Other countries giving aid don't want to think their money is going to line the pockets of profiteers.
I have no trouble believing that the corruption happened at a lower level than the Reznikov and that he had to take the fall for it. He was in a difficult position where it was easy for people down the supply chain to take advantage of the desperate situation.