“Spanish Shame”: Reaction of opinion leaders and social media to Zaluzhny’s “approval”
8 March 2024 11:05
Yesterday, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy and the Ukrainian Foreign Ministry announced that the head of state had “agreed” on Zaluzhnyy’s candidacy for the post of ambassador to the UK. The news stirred up the Ukrainian blogosphere. Kommersant Ukrainian 
made a brief compilation of the reactions of bloggers, opinion leaders and ordinary users to this event.
“Exile”?
One of the most popular theories on social media is that Zelenskyy was “exiled”, as if Zelenskyy was removing a rival from the country’s political life before the presidential election.
“Technically…)”
– mP and chair of the Committee on Freedom of Speech, Viktoriia Syumar, said succinctly.
The odious representative of the mono-majority in parliament, Mariana Bezuhla, was a little less concise and somewhat more mysterious. Previously, she had harshly criticised Zaluzhnyi and openly rejoiced at his removal from the post of commander-in-chief. So her post is full of caustic sarcasm, but she seems to agree that Zaluzhny’s appointment as ambassador is a sign of “exile”:
“The ambassadorship is a good tradition for us. Good luck!”
Publicist Vitaly Portnikov, on the other hand, believes that the turbulence of wartime is so strong that it is simply impossible to engage in politics with all the strategic planning today:
“Firstly, we need to realise that there will be no presidential election in Ukraine in the near future. Even if we imagine this appointment through the electoral prism, we should talk about 2029-30 rather than 2024. Politics in Ukraine is dead and will become alive and real only when we can confidently say that Ukraine will remain on the political map of the world and Ukrainians will live on its territory.”
It is not very clear whether the blogger is criticising Bankova Street in this way or, on the contrary, defending the decision of the Presidential Office. But if Zelensky was guided by the motive of “exile”, then the decision is correct. After all, according to former MP and Prosecutor General Yuriy Lutsenko, Zaluzhny has been president for less than 5 minutes.
“I have said it many times: Zaluzhny is now at the stage of Yushchenko at the National Bank. Every week, delegations of the National Democratic Forces visit him in the courtyard of the NBU, show him their ratings, and invite him to the mace. And Viktor Andriyovych looks thoughtfully at the sky and says: It’s not time, the cranes have not yet arrived… Zaluzhnyi already feels the terrible burden of people’s love. But he postpones the decision until after the election,”
– he wrote on Facebook.
Where is Agriman?
The red thread running through all the reactions of opinion leaders is a remark about a serious violation of diplomatic protocol. According to this protocol, the state accrediting the ambassador sends a request to the host country. And the latter must give its consent to this appointment, which is called an “agriman”. This procedure is set out in the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations of 18 April 1961.
So, domestic experts argue that the publication of information about Zaluzhny’s appointment is a gross violation of this protocol, as there is no agriman from the UK yet.
“Spanish shame… “It is especially important (and required by international practice) that the FACT of the request for an agriman be kept in complete secrecy, because the disclosure of such information, especially in the event of a refusal to grant an agriman, may lead to negative consequences, in particular to complications in relations between the states concerned…” Why is it that in all student textbooks (including the above textbook) on diplomatic relations and protocol, one thing is written, and someone multiplies it all by zero without shame and conscience? What is the point of all this? Protocol, respect for the partner country, international documents? Maybe it’s time to stop lowering the bar!”
– wrote former Ukrainian Ambassador to the United States Valeriy Chaly.
Ivanna Klympush-Tsintsadze, former Deputy Prime Minister for European and Euro-Atlantic Integration and current Chair of the Parliamentary Committee on European Integration, agrees:
“This is the first time I have seen a request for an aggreement to the other side being made publicly. This is at least incorrect in relation to our partners. I doubt that the Ministry of Foreign Affairs does not understand this.”
The netizens, of course, burst out in sarcasm.
Traditionally, in the history of Zaluzhny, the communication of the Ukrainian authorities is, to put it mildly, imperfect. It is not even clear from Zelenskyy’s and the Foreign Ministry’s statements whether this “approval” was agreed with the former commander-in-chief himself. It is likely that such strange publicity and violation of diplomatic protocol was not expected in Britain. So, over the next few days or weeks, we will be waiting for the situation to develop and for new statements.
