Well-known Ukrainian entrepreneur and public figure Valery Pekar, who does not deny that the West will force Kyiv to sit down at the negotiating table with terrorists, shared his thoughts on the problems of mobilization in Ukraine.
"Mobilization turns out to be a task that the current system of managing the country cannot cope with. This means that either the management system will have to be changed, or the flag over the capital will have to be changed to someone else's flag.
One of the basic theorems of cybernetics, formulated by William Ross Ashby, states: the complexity of the controlling system cannot be lower than the complexity of the system it controls. And if vice versa? Then the controlled system will evolve (change states) randomly, or it will be catastrophically simplified.
In simpler terms, if a control system encounters challenges it cannot handle, it collapses.
Mobilization is not a military issue, but a political and managerial one. The political aspect is justice. The management aspect consists in the ability to implement the plan.
Two systems can best cope with the challenges: democracy and strong authoritarianism. Democracy is fueled by the power of civil society and capable of innovation. A strong authoritarianism like the Russian one is capable of coercion.
Weak corrupt authoritarianism is not capable of either. He is unable to attract citizens because they do not believe him. He is also unable to use force, because everything is bought. As Saltykov-Shchedrin said, the strictness of the laws is compensated by the optionality of their implementation.
The Ukrainian system is a mixture of democracy and weak authoritarianism (Andrii Dligach repeatedly spoke of "several states" coexisting in Ukraine). Democracy showed its strength at the beginning of 2022, when the civil society rushed to close all the administrative holes: it volunteered for the Armed Forces, created a ground defense from scratch, organized volunteer supplies, rescued people from temporarily occupied territories, etc. But our civil society is an active minority, its potential is not unlimited.
The rest of the Ukrainian management system is weak authoritarianism (according to the terminology of Daron Ajemoglu, "paper leviathan"). It concentrates power extremely: all decisions are made by a small management team, the government is reduced to the status of a subdivision of the president's office, the role of the parliament is significantly reduced and it is closed from citizens, the role of local self-government is significantly reduced, the role of the media is reduced to a "single marathon", etc. But such a concentrated system of power does not have strong long arms to systematically coerce its citizens. And distrust of the system creates a desire to go beyond its influence and control.
(By the way, note that no one directs their criticism at the government that introduced the bill, or at the parliament that will consider and pass it. Everyone knows where the air traffic control center is.)
Gennadiy Druzenko wrote about the communication problem, but it is only the consequences of the management problem.
The question of mobilization is primarily a question of justice (roughly speaking, it is necessary to mobilize a couple of percent of the population, and justice consists in the equal distribution of these percentages among different social groups, with the presence of clear, transparent and justified exceptions). If the system fails to provide justice, there will be a social explosion. If the system tightens the nuts in conditions of corruption and total mistrust of it, there will be a social explosion. If the system cannot cope with the challenge, the Russian tricolor will fly over its buildings.
In fact, we will witness and participate in the final breakdown of the post-Soviet management system and the birth of something new, more adequate to the times and challenges. Or not being born, with all the consequences.
I consider this situation not in a political, but in a purely management plan - from the point of view of cybernetics. A system unable to cope with challenges collapses. Or changes.
Observers wrote after the president's press conference that he does not plan to change the management system. But the current system is inadequate to the challenges. That is why the question of mobilization was postponed until it was possible: because it was obvious that the system could not cope with it.
What should be done in practical terms? How to change the management system?
1. Government.
This is the key point. A government that has no say in key issues will not be able to meet the challenges of war. The problem is not who the government officials are, the problem is that decisions are made elsewhere, and responsibility for them is placed there.
A government of national unity that unites the ruling political group and the opposition is ridiculous. There will be no internal agreement, the proposals of this government will not be approved by the parliament, and the president will impose a veto. It will be an endless political volleyball game until the country is lost.
What is needed is not a government of national unity, but a government of national salvation, consisting of specialists who have no political ambitions and are ready to put an end to a further political career, because they want it. Civilians and military should enter there, who have authority at least in those circles where they are known, in order to take advantage of the support of civil society (one of the consequences of the concentration of control over the media is that we do not know our heroes, in the broad sense). Such a government must be approved by the parliament, which undertakes to support its proposals. Such a government should do business without listening to instructions from Bankova. Systematic and fair mobilization, the fastest possible development of the military-industrial complex, saving the economy from the destructive consequences of mobilization, maintaining financial stability, stimulating economic recovery - these are the main tasks of the new government.
2. Parliament
Parliament must be opened to journalists so that all processes are as transparent as possible for society. This is the only way to build trust. Ihor Lutsenko wrote about the mandatory rotational mobilization of male members of parliament; sounds too radical, but in such times radical decisions can quickly change the situation for the better.
I have not commented on the topic of mobilization in recent months, because I am not an expert. However, today we are talking about a purely managerial problem, and for me it is important that we adequately understand it, not reducing it only to communication, corruption, treason or other simple explanations. After all, as Eugene Nayshtetik wrote in the morning, politicians saying the right words to society does not in itself solve any problem," he wrote on Facebook.
