MP Solomiia Bobrovska: Prytula Would Take 'Holos' From Three Percent to Another Level

In Bobrovska's view, politics is routine, but Prytula has the desire and ambition.

In the new episode of the program 'Antypody' on the Islandia TV channel, People's Deputy from the Holos party Solomiia Bobrovska talks about the split in Holos, Babyn Yar, Vakarchuk, Rudyk, Prytula and sexism in the Verkhovna Rada.

What compromises should the Rudyk group make for you to glue your party back together and keep working?

Kira took the old path, when you hold power in a kind of semi-authoritarian, probably, story. Everyone will play by my rules. Although for the first six months we did not see that from her. When the first attempts to reach agreement with the Bankova coalition began, vote-shepherding, then they began tracking who votes for what. Especially economic bills that concern customs matters.

And right now the most important thing is happening, including in the Holos faction in Kyiv City Council. So this is not a question of compromises, it's a question, friends, of what party did we join? Because we did not join European Solidarity, Servant of the People, Batkivshchyna, For the Future or OPZZh. There the rules of the game are more or less clear. There is a vertical of power. Then everyone works on their own tasks.

When you came into a company of people with whom you shared values, activist hustle, advocacy, protests, you ate more than one pood of salt. With most of them, not with those who split off today. And here people start telling you the old rules, that we don't do it that way. That we want it this way, not that way. Friends, I can't look my own people in the eye, starting with close people and ending with voters, with those things that you are lobbying and pushing today. In particular, for example, the vote in the Kyiv City Council on Babyn Yar. And this is not a question of compromises.

I came to parliament two years ago, I want to leave this parliament with my values maximally preserved. And it is not a question of compromise whether to sign, as the opposition, a letter on the resignation of Venediktova, or not. Because this is a question for them, listen, friends, what have you gotten into? We are no longer a super-opposition, we are finally the opposition. If you are interested in the government, tell us, dear colleagues, we sincerely want to be in the government. Damn, understand, we went to work as ministers. Well, then it could have been done through calm discussion. But the way it is being done, behind closed doors and in a petty way.

So what is this? Is it irreversible already?

I believe certain boundaries will be found, but I do not see the possibility or the sense of how a party leader can remain, for seven years, in office in a so-called democratic party. I sometimes joke that Sytnyk is easier to remove as head of NABU than our head. That's one. And second, boundaries can be found, but can the party survive such stories, especially without changing a leader who does not enjoy authority. Well, that's another question.

As for her not enjoying authority, does that concern the whole party, or is it your evaluative judgment?

It is my evaluative judgment.

Isn't it simply logical to assume that if there are at least two groups in the party, then surely someone respects her and someone does not?

Look, there are simply logical things. If a party leader's recognizability is not growing, or trust or the desire of voters to vote for her is not growing, and we do not see growth in percentages over these six months. That is an indicator. Not my subjective one, but a sociology indicator. When Kira came to the post, we clearly understood: Kira is coming to set up the party as a manager, on wheels, to restart the process where it was limping, where there was a problem.

Well, here, obviously, there is a desire to play in politics on a large scale with leadership. In my view, a person who can head this party, and a person who will be recognizable. In my view, she is in the party today. But we'll see what happens next.

With whom in the party will you never be able to reach an understanding anymore?

With your permission, I won't name those names, but they exist, they are present in the faction.

But you saw all these people back when you were building the party. You saw them, and surely they made some normal impression. At what point, in your opinion, did they break down or get corrupted, if one can use such a word about people? And why, if you had some suspicions or some reservations earlier, did you not insist that these people not be there?

First, these reservations were voiced at the formation stage, but were rejected by the leader with certain explanations. That is, we went through the year more or less calmly.

So the explanation satisfied you?

Of course it did not satisfy us, but there is a party leader. We knew our numbers on the list on the day of the congress. Some were surprised to find themselves in the last or next-to-last place on the list. Well, nevertheless we managed to hold on and somehow communicate normally for a year and a half. And we understood that at least everyone was on the same page.

And it turned out that not everyone was on the same page. And to me, that was the loss of the status quo when Serhiy Rakhmanin left as head of the faction. And then openly unpleasant lobbying stories began.

Lobbying in business terms?

Lobbying in business, political and so on terms. We saw that the faction began to fragment, where a clear ideological, political, commercial interest and split emerged. Well, at a certain point it became irreversible and inevitable. Certainly, it's regrettable. I understand the complaints of our supporters: first of all, reach an understanding, then you will emerge stronger, young democratic parties are needed by Ukraine and so on. Please, we voted for you.

I have to explain that what, conditionally, people voted for, for me or for the list or for Slavko Vakarchuk, with what Slavko came with, whose position we supported from the very beginning, I personally will leave with that. I am convinced that the ten, to which I belong, will also leave with that.

Just a question: you are now in conflict, but besides you, there are a lot of people in the Verkhovna Rada. You're an island. And behind you stand electoral dinosaurs. Dinosaurs, cannibals or some unknown life forms like the kiwi. Do you understand? And when people look, when you, as intelligentsia, argue about where the knife should lie, and where the fork, and where the napkin, that's a metaphor, then people are already standing and sharpening knives.

I would do the same in their place. Because this is the problem of democratic institutions, which in Ukraine give birth and just can't manage to be born. It's been like this for 30 years. When the story of multi-leader responsibility begins, I, for example, am not exactly an outright opponent, I can't stand this phrase 'multi-leader party', faction, team and so on. No, first of all, Ukrainians are a nation, a society that is not ready for multi-leadership. Because they don't fully understand what it is.

Nor is it ready for tyranny.

After 2018-2019 I had a kind of break inside, after Odesa, on the question of what unites us. Wherever I end up in various environments, eastern, western, southern, northern, and ending with our intellectual elite, writers, I asked: what unites us? In my view, it was Taras Prokhasko, and he said: 'We want to have a law, but we cannot live in a way that this law cannot be circumvented.'

So it is here too. We like to have a leader, but it has to be such that one can rustle from the side. And this phrase sticks with me, that we are very two-faced. We want a deputy to be capable of a huge machine, to get money for windows, doors and so on. And on the other hand, we will brand him a scoundrel because he stole. And we don't want that, we want to be closer to the people.

You come closer to the people: oh, you don't have a car, damn, you have no security, you have no driver, and you are still a girl. What I also like is when you come in jeans and sneakers, they tell me: is this really that Solomiia, I thought I'd met someone else. I say, listen, are you kidding or what, I honestly don't know how to react to this.

So when we return to such things, the question of teams with a clear vertical, that is, you understand what you are there for, how long you are there, what your function and task is. When you build a democratic process and someone sincerely, someone pragmatically uses all of this very much. And that's how such things begin. They are natural, in my view.

I am very sorry, for example, that Samopomich, we are not similar to Samopomich. Samopomich grew in its ratings, it had many times more representation in local councils. And only towards the end of the term did it begin to fall. With us it's the opposite. We began to destabilize at the bottom and before the start of the term, unfortunately. And we have no people in local councils. Although I agree that people stand behind us, and there must be a clear regional policy, which must also go down to the bottom.

Are there any topics that are very important to everyone, around which there is unity within your party? You said that some do not want to send Venediktova into resignation. What about Avakov?

As for Avakov, I think the whole faction signed. Although I know there are people in the faction who are more loyal, who approach him and comment somewhat restrainedly. It's hard for them to say publicly that Avakov is a devil, and everything else. That exists, but I did not observe people refusing to sign.

And in general, probably two things that we put forward at the moment when we understood that we were fragmenting, although we had not yet officially accepted it, but two things must be of paramount importance: these are the issues of national security, these are taboo topics on which we cannot fail to vote together, this is something that must unite us. And the issue of anti-corruption. But the issue of anti-corruption is so broad, starting from ProZorro and the ability to buy some sports grounds for a year, ending with an appeal to the Constitutional Court, for which we were scolded there, on the procedure for appointing the head of NABU. That's where we are really floundering.

Is it true that your group of deputies is supported by the well-known businessman Tomasz Fiala? Do you know him?

Yes, I know him, we have met, but personally he does not support me, and this is the first I've heard that he supports our group.

I don't mean financially, no, I mean media resources.

If you look at the appearances of my colleagues in the media, you see that none of our group has appeared on any TV channel over the last one and a half to two months. Another group is present, which calmly goes around.

To Akhmetov, to Kolomoisky, to Pinchuk, right?

Yes.

Well, what about New Time, say? Prytula works there, as far as I remember.

Prytula is not a faction member, this is his work as a host, not an invitation of him as a political commentator. I don't know which of my colleagues go there, I haven't heard.

So the Fiala thing is just rumors?

Absolutely.

Prytula. I understand that some questions should be asked of Prytula himself, and I would do so, if someone kept their promises and came to an interview. I'm hinting very elegantly that we have already agreed three times with the editor. So, Mr. Serhiy, I'm waiting.

Today it was made public that Prytula wants to head the Holos party. Do you support him as a potential head?

Yes. I don't hide it. I said this even before the split in the faction began, that the question of changing the party leader must be raised. Because things are not going quite the way they should. And I still think that Serhiy, as the most recognizable person, with his authority, could give this party another chance and a breath of fresh air.

I don't hide this position and frankly, if there is a party congress, I will support him if there is a vote. It seems to me that Serhiy would have the opportunity to lift this party from three percent to another level.

You said that engaging in politics is routine. It's not a stage, not show business.

Correct. Serhiy kept his word when he left the stage. He has not returned to the stage since the start of the 2019 election campaign, when he publicly said so.

But, as far as I know, he works at corporate events.

I don't know about that.

I think we will verify this information.

Plus for me, this is his volunteer work with the military. For me personally, this is also an indicator.

Sorry, please. I'm explaining because it will be logical. In an interview with RBC about corporate events, he said that he has to support his family. That he does not see the desire of Ukrainian, that's how it was said, voters to support his family. And therefore he has to do it. That's the question.

He promised that he would leave Variaty and he did leave them. That is his business, which he accompanied, and for 10 years or more he has been with them, and for me this is an indicator that he keeps his word.

And is it okay to hold a wedding, for example?

If he becomes party head, then completely different rules of the game begin. Let's start with that. Yes, this is routine, I agree. It seems to me that Serhiy approaches it this way, I want to hope and believe that he will not step on the next rakes, and that this will be a completely different job.

But here one must understand that the head of a party is not always the head of working processes. Because for that there is the head of the party secretariat. I would separate them. Serhiy has the desire or ambition, wonderful. I also have that desire and ambition to support him. And I believe he should be given this opportunity.

And why don't you want to become party head? Do you want to become party head at all?

No. Because I understand the responsibility very well.

Stop. Are you avoiding responsibility?

No, I'm not avoiding responsibility. I'm simply not ready for such a big role at the moment. For me, the Odesa region was enough. Serhiy has the capacity, opportunity, ambition, desire, wonderful. I think we need to join our efforts and help him.

How did you assess the fact that he appeared in the Russian franchise of the game 'Where is Logic'?

Did he appear or refuse?

He filmed 15 episodes, although the question was asked after the first one. Well, I understand that it's hard to film 15 episodes in a day.

I don't know whether it was after the first or after the 15th, when he had already heard and voiced it there. I trust Serhiy. And from his words, I also asked him this question, why it was so, he explained that he did not know the ultimate beneficiaries, who paid, whose funds they were. And after the conversation, he refused to take further part in this. I don't know whether they aired, or whether 15 episodes will come out.

Well, there is the channel's contract, I think surely so. And they bought the franchise. These are such serious expenses.

For me, the explanation was sufficient, exhaustive, I accepted it.

Did that satisfy you?

The explanation? Yes, completely.

Tell me honestly, you studied in the United States, you did an internship there. In Boston, it seems. So you are a person who is basically closer to the Western worldview paradigm. Doesn't such things as Serhiy's antisemitism, which he sometimes for some reason demonstrates, scare you?

Take this story, for example: the Jewish New Year, a Shabbat in Uman, and Tzadik Nachman, Natsyk Tsakhman. There was a whole scandal, the entire journalistic community condemned it, and they even received some warnings. So this Jewish story will not ruin your reputation, as a young progressive party? And you, as a person who studied in the United States. I think there may be problems with this.

Look, first of all, I can't stand and don't accept when these topics are manipulated, played with. And where there is something to say about the matter sometimes, they call it antisemitism. I don't know what episode this was with Serhiy. I know there was some episode when he commented on this in a public broadcast, then apologized, explained his position. But it upsets me that very often we exalt, downplay, lose, whose nation is more important, more complex, who suffered more in the Second World War. I don't accept these things.

The Journalism Ethics Commission condemned the host of the live show on NV Radio, Serhiy Prytula, for antisemitic statements made in the show. I just want to make sure no claims are made to me, this is Radio Svoboda.

I know. He apologized after that, explained why he used it on air. But knowing Serhiy, and especially, I think that the readers or supporters who know Serhiy understand well that Serhiy is fundamentally far from antisemitism, and to pin this label on him because you said something like that is too early and very easy, a very simple construction. It's all more complicated.

I am convinced that Serhiy is very far from the ideas of antisemitism. When we get to the topic of Babyn Yar, and that is what they start accusing him of being antisemitic, well, in my view, that is provocation. It's a desire to set two nations, Ukrainian and Jewish, against each other. That's the whole story.

It hurts me a lot when I'm accused of not comparing the Holodomor with the Holocaust. Because Jews get offended. So, dear colleagues, how so? We are talking about some shared dialogue, about in principle the tragedy of one people and another, about how both suffered, about how many Ukrainians became Righteous Among the Nations, about how many have not yet.

And the question of why our metropolitan Sheptytsky still has not received this status. And I am very pleased that this year a resolution was submitted to parliament on honoring Ukrainians who saved Jews inside the country. And a nation that was twice or three times, Ukraine was already so raped, destroyed, burned, and had the ability, the human heart, to save another nation, people, at risk of its own life. It seems to me that Ukraine is definitely the last nation where one should look for antisemitism.

I completely agree with you, but I think you would agree that with such sensitive topics one needs to be a bit more careful. And this isn't about Babyn Yar, but in principle.

Of course, one needs to understand how and when they joke there.

No, well, on stage it's fine, I'm a fan of stand-up there, of such adult stuff. So, please, go out and rip into it. About the Holocaust, about whatever you want, absolutely. So I take that. But there is a line between humor and real politics.

When the line is crossed, that in a nativity puppet show there cannot be a Jewish couple, well, that's funny, because without this Ukraine would not exist. And if we look at the number of interethnic conflicts in Ukraine, when politics doesn't reach these villages, listen, Zakarpattia, Bukovyna, Bessarabia, Odesa in the end, live wonderfully. These are mixed families. Up until the moment when someone invests money in this discord.

I remember when in Odesa in 2016 we first put up a Didukh in the city park in Odesa. And I was very hurt when people said: what, Ukrainians, Didukh, what is that, it offends me. Because when we come to put up a Jewish candelabrum, when we congratulate on Hanukkah, on Purim, and it is marked citywide. And it is always done with respect, with pleasure, with sincerity.

And then the next day, January 7, a huge Didukh, the first one made by children and students at an art school. These legs were cut off, thrown away, and the whole thing was taken apart into junk. And for me this is an act of vandalism against the Ukrainian people. But we don't talk about this, because Ukrainians always don't fully understand that it's important to stick together and stand up for one another.

The Babyn Yar memorial complex. What's wrong? What are the main complaints?

Memorial complexes of this kind should, at their core, have more than 50% state ownership, state financing. That's first. Second, it is unacceptable that in the seventh year of the armed aggression of the Russian Federation, the money being invested is money from Russian oligarchs.

The NSDC of Ukraine has imposed sanctions on one of them, another is a candidate for American sanctions for cooperating in the construction of Nord Stream 2, and the third has some diplomas and medals from Putin there. Together, these three make up a mixture that in fact invests, among other things, in the defense capability of the Russian Federation against the Ukrainian state.

But nevertheless, it is building a monument, because it hurts them inside, they have some personal history in Ukraine. Moreover, it is being made a private project, with exhibitions, narratives over which the state cannot have influence, control and so on.

Why can't the state have influence?

Because it will be a private project.

Well, tomorrow they could, on some private project, on a private building, for example, make a swastika, and so what, the state won't influence this?

They would get a swastika, and with the swastika they would face criminal liability.

Well, we have an article for inciting interethnic hatred. If they write there that Ukrainians killed Jews here, I don't think that will give…

Look, when we say that Ukrainians are special, especially cruel…

I haven't heard that.

Me neither. I'm supposing. For example, Ukraine was especially cruel. What is special about it there, I don't know, in the shooting of Jews at Babyn Yar, or whatever. And the Holocaust in Ukraine is different, it is a Ukrainian Holocaust.

Will this be a hidden or not hidden form of inciting interethnic hatred between Ukrainians and Jews? In my view, it will. Because you don't necessarily have to say directly, straight out, that a Ukrainian is a Nazi who killed us for 60, 70, 80 years. That he was especially cruel. And in general, that Ukrainians by their nature are people who, I don't know, all they wanted was the destruction of Jews on this territory. Well, that would be absurd.

I haven't heard any such official statement.

Officially there won't be such a thing. We're talking about the possibility, conditionally, of a similar exhibition. And when Khrzhanovsky, as executive director, comments that the Holocaust in Ukraine was special, or in Ukrainian fashion special, these are clips from his interview.

So for me the question arises: listen, dude, who are you at all in this state, what are you doing here in the position of executive director. Do you even have the right to open your mouth and say such things. In another state, not your own, because you are a citizen of the Russian Federation, and allowing yourself such public statements about a project that concerns not only Jews, let's be honest, but also Ukrainians, Roma and so on.

And this is a tragedy not of one Jewish people. It is a tragedy of the state, generally interstate, our shared tragedy.

So who did it? It was done by the Nazi regime. Germans and collaborators. These same people who shot in 2014-2015 in the occupied territories of Donbas. Occupiers, Russians, Germans and collaborators. And that's all. So will these collaborators stop being Ukrainians by origin? No, but are we interested in ethnic origin? This is an absolutely political story.

Serhiy, but you are not Khrzhanovsky, and I am not Khrzhanovsky.

Well, I'm not Khrzhanovsky either, and from the point of view, let's say, of artistic talent, I don't even rejoice in this, because I consider him a great director, in fact.

By the way, for me many questions remain after his film 'Dao'. And why the Kharkiv police opened a criminal case literally a week before a new round of scandals. But let's say, society thinks, it perceives information more easily when it is one-dimensional and clear.

When you say that it's not only Ukrainians, that it shouldn't be like that, because they are collaborators, well, you're not the executive director of this project. And I have doubts about his positions, ideological, ideological, including those of the people who sit on the supervisory board. Moreover, the Security Service of Ukraine not only recognized that this project poses a national danger.

And when did it do that?

In 2019 or 2018.

So under Hrytsak, then?

Yes.

Well, good that Medvedchuk and Surkis then didn't pose a national danger.

I just don't really understand where the doubt can be and why we are in principle debating when these things should be extraordinarily obvious. The state should be the founder of the memorial complex. It must create the project.

It can't. The state, to my great regret, I'm not saying they should do it, I'm objecting to you, the state cannot. The state cannot, because we've had no Museum of the Revolution of Dignity for eight years. We had all the contracts signed, we had 111 million paid, which dissolved into fictitious firms, you understand.

And this was done not by Russian oligarchs, to my great regret, this was done by our own, finished, sorry, please, thieves. Who have neither conscience nor dignity. Nothing. And when you say: the state must do it. What the state cannot do? It turns out that, yes, it cannot.

We can't even build a normal Holodomor memorial. We have that little girl standing there. Yes, it is not finished. It's a very powerful sculpture, but it is not finished. Famine is the most terrible death, as they say. And we cannot immortalize the memory of people tortured by this red scum, you understand. And then the question is whether we can or can't. We can't, really.

I object to you. I also have this thesis that eats at me inside like a worm, that we can't. But if we go back to Yushchenko's term, he was able to set up a memorial and raise the question of the Holodomor and genocide. A memorial complex was established under him, he began restoring the Cossack capitals.

This means that when there is desire, political will, instructions and clear distribution of tasks, then we can do everything. And when it is not on the agenda, when no one thinks about it, and maybe they forget about it, and who needs it anyway, then we can do nothing, and it all dissolves who knows where.

I am very ashamed that to this day we do not have a Museum of the Revolution of Dignity. But this same period of time shows that we could. And that same Yushchenko laid the groundwork, including the receipt of the Tomos, and went towards it. And Petro Oleksiiovych finished off this issue. We can, when we want to.

It seems to me that the state missed this moment and did not make it a priority. As one of those things that must be, and a checkmark must be in place. Now we are cleaning up this whole story. Because at one time we allowed, let it go, the Kyiv City Council gave this land to Rabinovych.

Rabinovych sold this land to potential investors, members of the supervisory board, it went badly, ours closed their eyes. They presented a concept that has no full visualization yet. And we are just sitting on our hands. But we can, when we want, when there is a clear task to do it.

One of the members of the supervisory board of this Babyn Yar complex is Pinchuk, with whom Serhiy Prytula worked at a TV channel for a long time, and I understand that he had no questions for Pinchuk related to this, since this story began long ago.

Because we remember the presentation with the participation of Friedman, Khan, Pinchuk and Poroshenko, who in fact presented all of this at the time. So how about this aspect? And what is Serhiy's position, if that is known then?

I know Serhiy's position toward Babyn Yar, it coincides with mine. I don't know about his conflict or discussion with Pinchuk, Serhiy should come and explain that himself, but I think that for Serhiy this is quite a value-based clear barrier and benchmark, and he is not ashamed to speak about it publicly, naming names. This shows a lot. But here Serhiy must answer this question himself.