Akhmetov, Kolomoisky, Poroshenko, Medvedchuk. How Ukraine will live without oligarchs?

The war in Ukraine changed the fate of millions of people and radically disrupted the established economic and political order. Life has changed for representatives of big business, more commonly referred to in the media as “oligarchs”. Their influence on decisions made in the country has noticeably decreased, which already gives rise to the hypothesis of the emergence after the war of "Ukraine without oligarchs."

They also cry without the rich, or how Ukraine will live, getting rid of the oligarchs. We talk about this in our material.

A specific system of power, under which oligarchic capital had a key influence on the political life in the country, developed back in the 90s.

Then people were absolutely incomprehensible and unpleasant at the same time: what it is like - from the general to the particular. Especially when you had nothing to do with this particular, as well as with the general, which no longer existed.

The new system, of course, had a lot of obvious shortcomings, but the first and most important was the defiant social injustice: what was the people's property even under the Soviet Union ended up in the hands of several hundred families.

But at the same time, Ukrainian big business or - oligarchy, as they liked to call this phenomenon, generated a number of important functions for the formation of Ukrainian statehood.

The first, no matter how strange it may sound, is the turnover of political elites.

In Ukraine, no one main family clan was formed, as in the Central Asian republics, just as the oligarchy did not become an economic appendage to the political center, as happened in Russia or Belarus.

There was also a big drawback. The Ukrainian elites remained politically corrupt and oriented towards the interests of big business.

But there were more benefits to it. Politics in Ukraine has always been a competitive business. And this did not allow establishing the dictatorship of one person or even some group of people.

The second important function of the oligarchy is to create really working ecosystems. Metallurgy, food industry, pipe rolling, chemical industry, oil and gas and other areas worked because:

a) it brought super profits to its owners, but also

b) launched a chain of jobs and tax revenues already for the whole country.

Actually, it is the working economy that largely creates the subjectivity of the country.

And the third function is image projects, which are impossible without a nationally oriented oligarchy in a global market economy.

The same victory of Shakhtar Donetsk in the UEFA Cup or the creation of rating TV channels, which, by definition, do not bring income to their owners, were only possible if there was a large investor in the country.

At the same time, long before the war in Ukraine, it was decided to say goodbye to the national oligarchy.

During the time of Petro Poroshenko, they tried to push back the oligarchy in order to clear the country's market for transnational corporations. Under Vladimir Zelensky, an "anti-oligarchic law" was adopted.

But the war began, and already it changed the very configuration of relations along the line of "big business - power."

Today, the oligarchs can really lose, if not everything, then everything basic national. A vivid example is Viktor Medvedchuk, whose business in Ukraine no longer functions, and his personal future remains in question.

As a result, the picture is still emerging as follows. The oligarchs, which is equal to "big business", are leaving Ukraine. Set the tone Rinat Akhmetov, which, by its status, is a beacon for everyone else.

He closed his media holding, citing the "anti-oligarchic law", and is rumored to be moving this direction to Poland.

Earlier, another of the richest people in Ukraine left the Rada Vadim Novinsky.

But so far there is still a whole set of "political" oligarchs in the country. This and Vasily Khmelnitsky, and Andrey Verevsky, and Yuriy Kosyuk, and Sergey Levochkin, and Sergey Tigipko. How long they will be Ukrainian oligarchs remains to be seen.

It stands alone Petro Poroshenko, who even before Zelensky tried to become the “last oligarch” in Ukraine.

Now, however paradoxical it may sound, the survival of Poroshenko's business empire is largely ensured by his active political opposition.

Now, through his fund, Poroshenko buys cars for the army. And before through him even then the first lady Marina Poroshenko developed inclusive education in Ukraine. It is worth recalling here that during her husband's presidency, she was the chairman of the supervisory board of the state cultural fund, the very one that operated within the framework of the Ministry of Culture and was financed by 200 million hryvnias. It was then that Marina Poroshenko, and part-time PR of her husband, with all dedication, conducted an election campaign for the money of taxpayers and earned votes on children with special needs.

Now their strategy has not changed at all. At least in the sense that the Poroshenko Foundation has almost nothing to do with charity in its usual sense. Well, this is so, a lyrical digression.

As for the oligarchs. They want to remain them further, and therefore leave the country. Therefore, in Ukraine they may soon not remain at all.

The richest Ukrainians suffer huge losses in the confrontation between Russia and Ukraine. The largest metallurgical plants were destroyed, areas with solar panels were destroyed, hundreds of thousands of hectares of agricultural land were under the control of the Russian Federation or in frontline areas. And those whom the war bypassed, "caught up" with the justice system.

Let us also turn our attention to the media sphere, where there is nowhere without oligarchs. Here, too, one cannot say that now we will be media independent.

And the departure of the oligarchy from the media sphere in the medium term does not guarantee a "warm bath" to anyone. Because now transnational companies with their CNNs will take the place of the kindly criticizing Ukraine 24. And here begins a story in which we have not yet been.