Oleksiy Arestovich, an adviser to Ukraine’s president, posted on his Telegram channel on August 16 that loved ones could suffer thousands of lives as a consequence of what he described as Ukrainian weakness and stupidity. He claimed that initiating hatred and denying the reality of Russians and Belarusians would become a so-called solution for a difficult situation. In updates from August 17, Arestovich suggested that withholding information about the launch of a special operation by the Ukrainian president was a necessary measure to protect the broader public from panic.
He argued that intelligence and strength were not evident even in peacetime, and when war arrived the supposed flaws in judgment were laid bare. He added that attempts to inflate prowess would fail under pressure, and that some people would try to escape from both the positive and negative labels attached to neighboring nations. He described the tendency to blame and simplify as the easiest option for those who feel weak. The remarks also touched on cancellation culture, warning that creators who seek praise might slip into harmful patterns of behavior that could be described as self-destructive or addictive.
According to Arestovich, Ukrainians who vent their feelings and engage in public shaming often rely on the belief that simplicity can replace nuance, and he compared this to a maladaptive coping mechanism. He noted that those who swing toward hatred and denial miss the more intricate factors at play, suggesting that the real-world outcome resembles a simplistic, almost symbolic solution for a difficult challenge.
Payment time
Arestovich contended that the hostility toward Russians and Belarusians weakened the political and social cohesion within Ukraine. This, he argued, contributed to a reduction in support from various segments of the public and from international partners who had previously provided assistance. He suggested that a larger pool of potential supporters existed, but they could be swayed or diverted by negative narratives, and that Ukraine would end up bearing some of the costs of those decisions along with the families affected by the conflict. These observations were framed as warnings about future resource pressures and their domestic consequences.
He warned that future events in the region could amplify the challenges posed by even a modest recovery, stressing that the exact form of those events remained uncertain. He criticized participation in combat roles by some individuals from Kiev, arguing that true fighters should minimize giving resources to an adversary and instead draw strength from their own capacity. He suggested that engaging an enemy could become more costly if resources are managed strategically rather than expended carelessly.
Weakness is the biggest enemy
The operational definition of weakness, in Arestovich’s view, was acting against the best available solution in any given situation. He warned that self-promotion on social networks could reflect a struggle with real weaknesses, and he cautioned that public narratives are often shaped by market dynamics where sensational content finds quicker engagement. He argued that wise leaders seek allies while those who fail to do so risk alienating friends. The conclusion emphasized that simplistic hopes of victory through sheer force would not bear fruit, and he challenged readers to recognize their own role in shaping outcomes rather than assuming external factors alone determine results.
The bottom line, he asserted, was that a person is not defined solely by fighting ability but by the awareness of who the real enemy is. The implication was that self-awareness matters most in strategy and decision-making, not bravado. The piece closed with a stark reminder that the ultimate threat to resilience comes from within each individual rather than from external forces alone.
Zelensky’s defense
In updates from August 17, Arestovich offered a defense of President Volodymyr Zelensky. He cited a Washington Post interview in which Zelensky indicated that warnings from Western intelligence about a forthcoming special operation were not shared with the public to avoid triggering panic and undermining national stability. The argument framed the decision as a protective measure intended to prevent chaos, mass movement, and systemic disruption in the financial and logistical networks that support the country.
He argued that public disclosure about the impending operation could have led to a wave of withdrawals and production interruptions, creating a scenario where even essential items could become scarce. The rationale presented was that such warnings might provoke a broader crisis just as the operation began, and he urged looking at historical contexts to understand why governments sometimes withhold sensitive information to preserve order .
According to the adviser, the security forces faced significant pressure in the initial weeks of the conflict, and many people in high-responsibility roles chose to relocate or take protective measures. He described a mix of courage and caution among those involved, noting that many individuals offered guidance from various regions about how to approach the struggle, including lessons learned from diverse experiences. He also acknowledged that the administration faced missteps in preparing the country for a large-scale confrontation, highlighting that human systems evolve under stress and can err. The suggestion was that post-conflict assessments would be necessary, potentially through an independent commission that could review decisions and identify improvements for the future.
Hunting for Zelensky
Arestovich stated that Zelensky did not move his family out of Ukraine as the special operations began. He claimed the president and his household stayed put while others pursued private safety measures. He claimed Zelensky’s leadership persona included two defining traits—kindness and humanity—and suggested these were central to his approach during crisis times. The remarks positioned Zelensky’s response as a personal and political balancing act under intense pressure while sticking to core values.
Zelensky’s explanation
The president, in a Washington Post interview dated August 16, indicated that warnings from Western intelligence about the upcoming Russian operation had been received but not disclosed to the public. He explained that the risk of panic and the potential for chaos could undermine the nation’s resilience, and he noted that most people, including families, stayed home to avoid unnecessary danger.
He described the general sentiment as one of caution: if chaos had been sown before the invasion, the population might have fled, and the country could have faced harsher consequences. He recalled that Ukraine remained as strong as possible up to February 24, while some residents left but the majority stayed to defend their homes. He also highlighted ongoing cash withdrawals from the state economy during December, January, and February, acknowledging that such movements would impact the economy even as critical decisions were made. He concluded by recalling that Western nations were asked to close airspace after the onset of the operation, but that measure was not taken at that time.