Political strategist Vladimir Petrov: MP Geo Leros has turned from Robin Hood into an ordinary forest bandit

He also called Navalny a "kamikaze" and a "knight on a white horse who rides a dragon, knowing he will not survive."

In a new episode of the Antipody program on the Iceland TV channel, Ukrainian political strategist Vladimir Petrov spoke about his attitude toward representatives of modern Ukrainian politics, Russian opposition figure Alexei Navalny and citizens of the Russian Federation as a whole, and also explained the importance of Presidential Office head Andriy Yermak.

A new scandal has erupted with MP Geo Leros. Videos have appeared on Telegram channels showing him, or a man resembling him, though he has not denied it, taking a package, and reports claim he allegedly takes money and then proposes setting fire to his own car.

This comes right after the arson of Shabunin's house, and it can be used to run discrediting campaigns against Yermak, Zelensky and other opponents. Do you believe this story, that it really happened that way?

Yes.

What gives you confidence?

I know Geo Leros, I know the people he worked with and continues to work with.

Today he wrote that it happened in Stolar's office. What do you think will happen to Geo's political career and public reputation after such an admission?

Right after that release, Geo failed. He did not step over the line, he fell from the status of adventurer to the status of swindler. The myth was destroyed, the frame of a fighter for justice was destroyed. And Geo Leros turned from Robin Hood into an ordinary forest bandit, whose main task is not establishing justice but making money.

There is nothing wrong with that either, and I say this not as a judgment about Geo's moral qualities; I am talking about it from the standpoint of the current agenda, the reality that exists now.

In the conversation, Geo Leros, I think I can already name him, is the man in the video, because he did not deny it.

Moreover, he confirmed it.

Yes, I mean he effectively confirmed it. Leros calls anti-corruption activist Vitaly Shabunin, with your permission, quoting him, a "f***ot". Do you agree with Geo?

You know, the market for alternative media and political services is quite competitive, with budgets and fees that are quite high for an average person. That is why jealousy exists between people who provide such services, of course.

I don't think Geo meant that Vitaly has sex with men, and moreover, Geo hardly meant that Vitaly did not pay him back, in both the good and bad senses. I think it is professional jealousy. I think he speaks of him this way solely because he understands that some of the money Vitaly earned could have been earned by him.

So do you agree with this assessment?

Well, of course, I am also in this market. Yes, he is a competitor for me, and I consider him an uncomfortable competitor, because he sits very tightly in a specific niche. He speculates very skillfully, by the protocol, on the same topic.

In principle, I think his political activity will be frozen for some time. Yes, of course, in the sense that he takes part of the market, yes, in this sense he is a f***ot.

You worked in Russia and lived there for some time. You were involved in the 2010 elections. In your opinion, as of now, what is wrong with Russia and its citizens?

In Russia, a cop is more important than an academic. In Russia, a warrant officer or police sergeant, in any conflict between a person with small epaulettes and a person with a large store of knowledge and respect in society, the cop will always be right. You feel like a resident of a village occupied by the Germans.

So Russia is a village occupied by the Germans, a "German soldiers" village. That means a man in uniform with a rifle can order both a helpless mother of many children and a local kulak who has everything. Sometimes the kulak negotiates.

And these "German soldiers" even come to his yard to drink and have fun. They even show him some respect, but as soon as they get a little drunk and want his daughters, all the respect vanishes. They will quickly put him in his place.

And is this state of affairs accepted by Russian citizens?

Absolutely. I sincerely respect the Russian opposition for existing under conditions of constant pressure. We do not usually praise Navalny, because he did not say that Crimea is Ukrainian and in principle supports the position that Crimea is Russian, but setting aside ideological points, one cannot fail to respect a man who several times risked his life to fight the strongest and, in essence, most frightening person in Russia. Navalny is a knight on a white horse who rides a dragon, knowing he will not survive. He is a kamikaze.

And what could drive him? That kind of pursuit of glory and despair, madness. I can assume that religious fanatics acted this way in their time. I suppose that suicide bombers could be guided by some similar logic.

No, I would compare him to David versus Goliath.

David against Goliath, that is a problem with facts, it is a fairy tale.

Why?

Well, it is a biblical story, not a historical fact.

Was the sling not found?

Nothing was found. It is the same as with the Svinarchuk case. That is, it is a myth.

Some people are born heroes. They are very few, and that is why they turn into fairy tales. Ilya Muromets, David, Peresvet, well, if we take Russian history, we are talking about modern Russian history, Alexander Nevsky. That is, people who are ready for anything, ready to sacrifice their lives for a beautiful deed, that is so cool.

Can he be compared with Yulia Tymoshenko, say?

No.

Who among our well-known dissidents or simply heroes could he be compared with? What kind of person is he, what format? Who is he like, if we take an analogy not from world culture but purely from Ukrainian culture?

Probably closest to... I won't say Bandera, because Yanevsky will now come out from around the corner and hit me on the head with a hammer. In modern Ukrainian history I do not know of such a person. We don't have such people.

You have communicated and worked for a long time with well-known Russian political strategists. These are Sergeytsev, Uralov, Kulikov, people who, if we believe Google again, are closely affiliated with various Kremlin political projects. Do you still maintain relations?

I corresponded with Uralov after your interview with Drozdov; I have not corresponded with Sergeytsev for a very long time. I congratulate Kulikov on his birthday, and Kulikov congratulates me. And I consider Kulikov my teacher. Most of what I know how to do, I know thanks to meeting him in his time.

For a long time he was an example for me, and it was a great personal tragedy for me to realize that I had grown up to the level of my teacher, and it was a tragedy because he disappeared for me as an example, and I did not know what to do next.

When you have a teacher, when you have a role model, you strive toward them. You try to reach them, and it seems to you that this is the limit, but when you get there, it turns out that it is far from the limit, and you have to move on by yourself.

Didn't it upset you that they engage in political campaigns that are, one way or another, directed against your homeland?

No.

Why?

I understand them. They are Russians, they are Russian citizens. They have been on the Russian market their whole lives. They have been doing this their whole lives. Moreover, I perfectly understand all citizens of Russia who support the occupation of Donetsk and Luhansk, who support the annexation of Crimea.

I want to ask, do you understand them or do you support them?

I understand them. I am aware that if I were a citizen of Russia, I would also support this. I believe Ukraine is lucky that I identify myself as a citizen of Ukraine. I believe Ukraine is lucky that I defend its interests. Of course, I do not support the occupation of territories and the annexation of Crimea. Of course, I believe all of this must be returned immediately.

With apologies, payment of compensation, and everything else. At the same time, I see no point in explaining to Russians that they acted like swine in committing a crime. Because, returning to the beginning of our interview about the murder, they will find any justification, any argument to prove to themselves that they live in a country that is cooler, more majestic and stronger than another country.

It is their choice, it is their desire. I cannot condemn them for absolutely natural, primitive, human reactions. It is like condemning a man who worked as a trolleybus driver for 30 years for getting drunk on payday and, for the 30th time in the last 30 months, beating his wife and hitting his children.

There is no point in condemning this process, because these relations, his and his wife's, are their social contract. They know very well that this is how they live. And if I came to them and said "You are living wrong," they would look at me as if I were crazy, because in their lives everything is right, everything is understood, and according to very clear rules.

I find it much more interesting, pleasant, fun, and inspiring to feel like a citizen of a country that is fighting an aggressor. I do not want to feel, it bores me, it is unpleasant for me to feel like a citizen of an empire. A citizen of a country that has defeated everyone. It is unclear where to go next.

Do you work with the Presidential Office?

No.

You don't work with them at all? You have no campaigns that you run for representatives or people affiliated with the Presidential Office?

No, I do not run a single campaign for representatives or people, not, well, affiliated or not...

Let's put it this way, advisers?

No.

Deputies?

No. But there are people who, you know, can say, well, he talks to someone somewhere, he is doing something else too. So I hesitated, so as not to lie by accident. I have no campaigns that I run for the Presidential Office.

In your opinion, who is superfluous in the Presidential Office? Whom would you dismiss? Please name three surnames for me.

Look, I will answer like this. I believe that the person whose place I will take should be fired. Whoever he is. That is, if tomorrow they come to me and say, "You know, we really want you to work, but all the positions are filled, tell us whom to fire and we will fire him." I would point my finger at the first person who happens to walk down the corridor.

I believe that at the present moment nobody in the Presidential Office needs to be fired, because the best is the enemy of the good. At present, vertical and horizontal connections have formed there that allow it to function. So there is no need to fire anyone.

But if I learn tomorrow that Podolyak has been fired, I will smile, I will be glad. These are personal motives. He is a boor. And damn it. He does not know how to talk to strangers, and like all stupid people, he thinks he is the smartest, and I have not the slightest doubt that he will cause the office a huge number of problems.

And Tatarov? Will he cause problems or not? Because now we see a new project by Mykhailo Tkach, published in Ukrayinska Pravda, devoted precisely to Tatarov. Can this be seen as a potential sign of his toxicity and danger?

But that is exactly his value. Look, if we follow public opinion and fire officials at the first signs of toxicity, there won't be enough people. A person is like a puffball mushroom. He must absorb all the toxicity he can. And only then can he be thrown away. Whether it will be Tatarov or someone else, we need to see.

As for Tatarov himself, I don't like cops, everyone knows that. So if someone tells me "Here is Tatarov, a cop." I will say "Damn, evil." But among the officials of the Presidential Office, he is for me a not outstanding, unremarkable figure. Whether life taught him, or something else, I don't know. In fact, he is not noticeable.

That is, I hear about Tatarov when he appears in the speeches of activists. That's all. I did not watch Tkach's investigation; I saw just this, that he was swinging his fists with some buddy. I believe it is unacceptable for an employee of the Presidential Office to jab his friend with his fists at his own birthday party, walking around in a tracksuit.

And the most shameful thing, the most shameful thing, is this little bag. Where from? Why? This little bag. Why (the editor's note: "Why") do you need this bag? At your birthday party, in Kyiv, in a restaurant. What do you carry in it, in this bag, tell me?

Well, they probably give money as gifts, right?

I think that if they were giving Tatarov money, he would need a backpack. But this bag, I hate these bags, I cannot look at them. Nothing irritates me about Tatarov as much as this bag that I saw.

And who in the Presidential Office, in your view, has already soaked up toxicity like a puffball mushroom? Who is now the most toxic figure in the president's circle?

Toxicity is determined by publicity.

I understand. But some toxicity is useful, some is harmful.

Right now the most toxic is Arestovych.

Arestovych?

Of course, he has made so many statements. He attracts such a huge amount of negativity. But Arestovych deserves credit: he is, you know, like a sponge, he automatically knows how to squeeze himself out. He soaks up toxicity, and then somehow squeezes it out of himself.

Imagine you have received the authority to dismiss officials, deputies, any people. Suppose such powers were granted to you as a result of some constitutional reform, you work, perhaps, as head of the Presidential Office, and you can dismiss people.

Let's do this. I will name people's surnames, and you approximately suggest with what wording you would dismiss these people?

I agree to this game. But before that, let me assume that your question contained the answer, and assume that you expected me to say that Yermak needs to be fired, that he is now the most toxic in the circle?

I wanted to ask when Yermak will gather this toxic moisture. Yes.

He has not gathered it yet. I think he has a high margin of safety, he can gather more. I think he should gather more. I think Yermak must absolutely not be fired now. Because he is precisely the person because of whom we entered that stage of aggravated relations with Russia, which we should have gone through back in 2018 with Petro Poroshenko.

I think it was precisely Yermak who brought Russian-Ukrainian relations to the level of tension that exists now. And he must logically keep moving forward, because he is succeeding at it. Moreover, I understand that for him the escalation of the conflict with Russia is fundamentally important. Because only the escalation of the conflict with Russia serves as Yermak's justification for the situation with the "Wagner fighters."

That is, exclusively by escalating with Russia can he use it as an argument that he is not a Russian spy. And he will do everything possible to aggravate these relations. And that is right. That is, I believe they need to be aggravated, because in the state they are in, in the state they were in for the last seven years, they cannot remain.

We must aggravate them, we must go through the crisis, we must endure it, because sooner or later it will happen. This crisis must happen and turn into something. 

But why does he need this? 

I do not want to justify Yermak, I do not want to defend him, and I will not do it. I think he is a hostage of the situation. I think he simply did not expect that he would have to deal with all of this, do all of this and be in the state, in the place, in the historical period in which all of this has poured out. I think he is learning as things go. He is forced to learn.

I think he is forced to correct some of his mistakes. First make his mistakes, then correct these mistakes. I feel rather uncomfortable right now, because I know that Yermak has made some attempts to cause me trouble, that he does not like me.

But at the same time I must be objective and adequate, so I need to formulate my position in such a way that I keep my face, do not look like a conditional toady, and at the same time do not stoop to demonstrating personal displeasure toward a person who does not like you.

So I am now completely abstracting from Yermak's personality and forming in my head the image, in essence, of a gray cardinal, who fails and is not able to communicate with the masses, but who with each passing day becomes more professional, stronger, in apparatus and backroom games.

Yermak is a pure-blooded professional political intriguer. Moreover, not within Ukrainian politics. In some miraculous way, maybe even out of thin air, he became a participant in foreign policy processes. With Russia, with the US. Yes, they still look at us there as cave dwellers, but nevertheless we are already openly irritating Russia thanks to the activity of the Presidential Office.

And we know that the influence of the head of the Presidential Office on the president is significant. So Yermak has a historical mission. Perhaps after the aggravation with Russia that will happen because of his activity, we will all curse him, but we must understand that this aggravation is inevitable.

The sooner we go through it, the better. And if Yermak is ready to sacrifice himself and become a person whom we will curse for this, then who are we to stand in his way. 

Back to the point. So, you have the authority to dismiss anyone. And now I will give you a list of persons whom you, let's imagine, are dismissing. With what wording do you dismiss the following persons?

Is my task necessarily to fire them? 

Yes. So we are in a situation where you are dismissing. Say, you work in the Presidential Office and you have one stamp — to dismiss. But one must at least write, we are a democratic country, the wording. Tishchenko?

For stinginess.

Shufrych?

For immoral behavior.

Podolyak?

For drinking. 

Poroshenko?

For services to the homeland.

Lutsenko?

For health reasons.

Gordon?

For constantly sticking his tongue up his own backside. 

Medvedchuk?

For satanism.

If you imagine Ukrainian politics as a process on the level of a metaphor, what kind of process is it? 

It is the harvesting of potatoes, which symbolizes a feudal system that has not yet fully formed, the isolation of each clan and each political process. And the most important thing is its pointlessness under conditions of modern progress.