Reznikov's resignation: is it normal price to pay for other officials to learn lesson?

I don't like Reznikov's resignation.

But who's asking?

Minister Reznikov should resign. Does this strengthen or weaken our position during the war?

In my opinion, this decision weakens it.

Reznikov has built relationships with leading decision-makers. And this is important. Because the task of the Minister of Defense now is to exclusively deal with the supply of the army. Not to sit in the trenches, but to sit in meeting rooms and negotiate, negotiate, negotiate. And any new person must, at least partially, build those relationships from scratch. And don't roll your eyes and say that personal relationships are not important. No, they are very important. They affect the speed of decision-making. And not only that. It is good that Budanov was already among the people whom the Western world trusted and with whom he had contact. It is bad that there will be fewer such people. The bad thing is that Russian propagandists will start spreading the stories that the defense minister, who was given weapons by Western governments, left because of corruption. And, therefore, a corrupt official. And, therefore, the money of Western taxpayers is in danger. And this is at a time when we are critically dependent on arms supplies, and therefore on the decisions of politicians in the United States, Germany, and France. Politicians who want to please their voters. And they want to win the next election.

“Russian propagandists will start spreading the stories that the defense minister, who was given weapons by Western governments, left because of corruption. And, therefore, a corrupt official. And, therefore, the money of Western taxpayers is in danger. And this is at a time when we are critically dependent on arms supplies, and therefore on the decisions of politicians in the United States, Germany, and France. Politicians who want to please their voters. And they want to win the next election.”

And for what purpose? Will it reduce the level of corruption in the ministry? Or does it resemble burning a courtesan in the fire of the Inquisition to stop the plague?

That is. It is clear what we are losing because of this resignation. But what will we gain? It sounds a bit cynical, but in times of war, rationality and efficiency should come first. Will this reduce the level of corruption in the Defense Ministry and in the state as a whole?

Was there corruption in the Defense Ministry? Of course there was. Did anyone doubt this a month ago? Six months ago? Hardly. But then no one demanded the minister's resignation. Why? Perhaps because corruption in the Defense Ministry is hardly related to the figure of the minister. And, therefore, his resignation will not change anything. It could strengthen us during the war, this resignation, if the corruption schemes went away with the minister. But this will not happen.

Can we blame the minister for not fighting corruption? Theoretically, yes. But was this his main task now, during the war? I doubt it. It is questionable whether it is possible to fight corruption, which is a systemic flaw in the ministry, during a war without losing control of the ministry. Do these doubts mean that it is possible to steal during the war and there is no need to fight corruption? Not at all. It is necessary. But it's corruption that needs to be fought, and the fight against Reznikov is a bit of a different story. In which, as it seems, there are quite a few personal insults.

“Can we blame the minister for not fighting corruption? Theoretically, yes. But was this his main task now, during the war? I doubt it. It is questionable whether it is possible to fight corruption, which is a systemic flaw in the ministry, during the war without losing control of the ministry.”

Is Reznikov to blame for compromising with corruption and turning a blind eye to it? Yes, it is a compromise. A corrupt compromise. And it is disgusting. But the reality is that such compromises do exist. Moreover, an active part of society also made this compromise when the war started. Will the minister's resignation change this compromise among officials? That is why the resignation itself looks destructive, weakening and not strengthening. It does not solve the problem of corruption systematically.

It turns out that the Minister of Defense resigned during the war because of a failure to communicate about corruption in his department. In peacetime, this would be correct. During the war, if we were talking about, for example, the Ministry of Education, this would also be true. But is it true in time of war for the Ministry of Defense? The Minister of Defense lost his post because he did not react correctly to the scandal about his subordinates stealing eggs. Is this a normal price to pay for the resignation of a minister in time of war? A resignation that will definitely affect our defense capability. Is this a normal price for other officials to learn this lesson? Or when the air raid warning sounds, should students go to the bomb shelter, even if the teacher did not have time to point out their mistakes in their homework?

Source

About the author. Serhii Fursa, investment expert, blogger.

The editors do not always share the opinions expressed by the authors of the blogs.