Judging by the actions of the main presidential candidates, the system of power that has developed in the country over the years of independence will fundamentally remain the same

The phrase of the hapless Soviet Prime Minister Valentin Pavlov, “We wanted the best, but it turned out as always” (later quoted by Viktor Chernomyrdin), seems to be said about Ukraine after all.

The oligarchic model of the Ukrainian economy suffered a slight setback only in the last two years of Viktor Yanukovych’s rule, when the presidential family began to push the “billionaires’ club” away from sources of money, mostly from outside the budget. And even then, the companies of the country’s richest man, Rinat Akhmetov, continued to regularly win government tenders.

The “family” gangster dictatorship could not last long: it was too disgusting for ordinary Ukrainians and medium-sized businesses. Mainly in its gangster aspect, clearly manifested in the clumsy violence against the Maidan.

But since the Maidan had no real leaders - radicals from all sorts of “Right Sectors” who enjoyed only situational support, and ordinary uncharismatic organizers of Maidan self-defense and self-government did not count - someone had to take power. The closest to the government seats was the parliamentary opposition, which also did not have popular support, but had at least some kind of legitimacy. However, in order to somehow control the situation, this government immediately needed oligarchs: two billionaires, Igor Kolomoisky and Sergei Taruta, became governors of the Dnepropetrovsk and Donetsk regions, respectively. As Kolomoisky said in an intercepted telephone conversation with former “family” frontman Sergei Kurchenko, “Who can be better than me?”

There can be no one better than the oligarchs in Ukraine: this is their country. After any revolution, they take it into their hands because there is no one else to do it.

Therefore, the most likely contender for the presidency as a result of the elections on May 25 is called Petro Poroshenko.

This cunning of all Ukrainian billionaires was an ally of Viktor Medvedchuk, Vladimir Putin's godfather, in the ranks of the Social Democratic Party in the late 1990s. In the early 2000s, he participated in the creation of a political force that later became known as the Party of Regions. In the mid-2000s, he received political dividends from his friendship with Viktor Yushchenko - he served under him as both the head of the National Security and Defense Council and the Minister of Foreign Affairs. And after the election of Viktor Yanukovych as president, he did not go anywhere and in 2012 he worked as Minister of Economy.

Under all the authorities, Poroshenko was involved in politics and at the same time became rich.

Sometimes he - accidentally and briefly - found himself on the wrong side of the behind-the-scenes fight and was then accused of constructing ingenious anti-tax schemes, but was never convicted, as happens as a result of the Ukrainian behind-the-scenes fight. It was just that his side took over at the right time. So in recent months, he took the side of the Maidan, was a frequent guest there, he was seen in the hottest places - and the authorities tried to collect allegedly accumulated tax debts from him. It worked out, this power no longer exists.

Recently, Poroshenko again formed an alliance - with Vitali Klitschko, who could take away some of the votes from him in the presidential elections. The alliance was formed after Poroshenko and Klitschko met in Vienna with another oligarch, Dmitry Firtash , who was awaiting extradition to the United States there on corruption charges. Yes, Firtash is free only on bail of €125 million, but he is an important political player, like Poroshenko, who flourished under all presidents and brought many deputies to the Verkhovna Rada. This means that for Poroshenko he is acceptable, if not an ally, then a negotiating partner.

Both Poroshenko and his main rival Yulia Tymoshenko, whose Batkivshchyna party is now essentially in power, are likely holding behind-the-scenes negotiations with Akhmetov, who is still strong in eastern Ukraine and now rules the remnants of the exiled Party of Regions. This party is not fighting for power now - not only because of the lack of chances, but also because Akhmetov knows both leading candidates well and will come to an agreement with the winner.

Poroshenko promises to leave Prime Minister Arseniy Yatsenyuk in the chair; perhaps he will retain his position under Tymoshenko. Why not: his “kamikaze government” is not taking any anti-oligarchic steps. The promised unpopular measures in the special law “On avoiding financial catastrophe and creating preconditions for economic growth in Ukraine” are numerous: here is the taxation of pensions, interest on deposits and foreign currency purchases, and an increase in excise taxes, and an increase in prices for housing and communal services and gas for the population, and previously absent VAT on medicines. If, however, one of the main problems of the Ukrainian economy under the previous authorities was the blatant robbery of the budget through illegal VAT refunds, government contracts, smuggling and tax breaks for companies trading in imported hydrocarbons, then no legislative measures are being taken against this robbery.

Ukrainians are happy that the public procurement system has now become more transparent (much like in Russia, where this transparency does not really interfere with kickbacks), and that professionals from the private sector have come to lead the tax and customs services. But neither Vitaly Naumenko from KPMG, who headed customs, nor the chief tax officer, who worked at UBS, Igor Bilous , in their first keynote speeches, focused on closing oligarchic schemes. Perhaps, under them - and President Poroshenko or Tymoshenko - life will become somewhat easier for medium and small businesses, because there will be logic in the actions of the authorities.

But the foundations of the system that has developed in Ukraine over the years of independence will not go away.

Perhaps there is nothing wrong with this: Yanukovych’s banditry was indeed worse than anything that preceded him in the history of the country. But you can hardly count on a big economic leap with such horsemen as the Ukrainian oligarchs: these are people who benefit from the appearance of changes, and not from the changes themselves.

Country of oligarchs: can Petro Poroshenko change Ukraine?