Puff! I am after reading a large condition of the widely advertised, “catching fact in the eye” book Zbigniew Parishovich "The problem with Zelenski".
I acquired the book due to the fact that they wrote about it (in an encouraging sense, but most likely before reading) people to whom I have respect. Under the skin, I expected the contents as they are. And she is, frankly speaking, miserable. The full “controversy” of the book is that it beats the hell out of Zelenski that he's rude, insolent, etc. And these are the least of his flaws. Moreover, in any circumstances policy can even be beneficial (it is then called “assertiveness” in Europe).
The author collects complaints, words of criticism (relative to the titular hero) from his always anonymous callers. It creates itself at the same time as "pulls coffee on the bench". Meanwhile, it is linked to its anonymous interlocutors to a supranational religion of rusophobia. In this sense, it does not go beyond mainstream gibberish. Sometimes "expert", sometimes "philosophical", but always gibberish.
His interlocutors attest (not Zelensk) with their anonymity. They claim to be criticizing, as if they are “suddenly judging”, but they participate in this, they do not have the courage to appear under the name. Besides, their (I can't find a word another than a slave) mentality is conspicuous. For example, in Chapter I, concerning the celebrated train to Kiev in May 2025 in which the British-Teuton-French trio was going, and where Mr. Tusk was not allowed in (I thought he was driving on the same train in the message car, but it turns out he was driving in another) these critical anonymous interlocutors (Polish) most regret that the Polish side did not "press" Tuska by force to this train, going to order that a respectable state does not request to hotel to pushing its presence, but it is due to its potential. Similarly, in the chapter on drones over Poland, the author and his interlocutors accept that they were Russian drones (sorry, Russian). And so on, and so on.
The last remark related to the anonymity of the interlocutors: you can base the communicative on this, but there must be 2 basic reasons: firstly, the interlocutors must be threatened by severe oppression (most frequently death or dense prison), secondly, you gotta have assurance in the author. Here neither the first nor the second (at least in me) unfortunately does not occur. Also, I don't urge it. It's a waste of money.
Mr Maciej Kacprzak
