- October 11, 2025
- 8:51 pm
- Ukraine
The country stands on the brink of a choice. Not between peace and war, but between two completely different ways of survival. Ukrainian MP Maryana Bezuhla stated in an interview with the YouTube channel “Kulary Zabelina“: Ukraine faces two paths — either long-term militarization following the Israeli model, or gradual collapse following the Syrian scenario.
Who is Maryana Bezuhla
Maryana Bezuhla is a Ukrainian MP of the IX convocation, a doctor and military officer who came to parliament not from political offices, but from the front line.
In the past, she graduated from the Bogomolets National Medical University and the Ukrainian Military Medical Academy, served in the army, worked with military hospitals, and saw the war from the inside — not on maps, but on bodies.
Bezuhla entered the Verkhovna Rada from the “Servant of the People” party in 2019 and quickly became one of the toughest figures in the defense and intelligence committee.
She is known for her straightforwardness in speaking about the problems of the General Staff and army management.
In 2024, Bezuhla left the faction, accusing the party of losing principles, and became independent.
In 2025, she publicly revealed that she was diagnosed with Asperger’s syndrome — a form of autism where a person perceives information literally, without filters and compromises.
“I don’t know how to play along. I just say it as it is,” she said in one of the interviews.
Today, Bezuhla is one of the most recognizable voices in the Ukrainian parliament.
“Point A” no longer exists
Bezuhla speaks bluntly:
there is no return to the pre-war reality.
“We will no longer return to point A,” she emphasized.
According to her, the country has already crossed a line where only a choice between reform and destruction is possible.
Scenario #1 — “Syria”: slow destruction
The first option Bezuhla calls “Syrian”.
This is a scenario where Ukraine loses stability from within.
The physical disintegration of the country is possible even with the preservation of formal institutions.
“They will knock out our energy, enterprises, civilian objects, military bases. A creeping offensive will begin. Allies will cool down, support will decrease. This is the worst scenario,” noted the MP.
Destroyed energy, tired allies, broken infrastructure, and a weary society —
all this creates conditions for internal collapse, which, according to her, neither heroism nor patriotism will stop.
Scenario #2 — “Israel”: military maturity and long readiness
The alternative is the path of Israel.
This is a scenario of maturity and rethinking:
the country restructures, becomes a military power ready to live under constant threat,
but at the same time maintains control, development, and internal mobilization.
“This is militarization for decades — with the adoption of mature decisions,” Bezuhla emphasized.
It’s not about militarism for the sake of war,
but about the systematic adaptation of society, the economy, and the army to a new reality where security is daily work, not an exception.
Sign of transition — army reform
Bezuhla considers the establishment of clear service terms for military personnel as the main marker of the transition to the “Israeli scenario”.
“You can’t build a defense system without determining how long a person serves and when they return to life,” she explained.
But this step, in her opinion, is impossible without a deep reform of the General Staff.
“Service terms cannot be designed without reforming the General Staff.
And the General Staff cannot be reformed with the current management tactics and strategy of the acting commander-in-chief,” added Bezuhla.
Her criticism of the top military leadership is not new.
However, this time it looks like a direct attempt to indicate a systemic deadlock.
War as a mirror of manageability
Bezuhla does not speak of defeat —
she speaks of the limits of manageability, of the risk of stagnation.
According to her, the army needs not just modernization,
but a change in the philosophy of command:
from a vertical of orders to a system of responsibility where commanders are not afraid to think, and decisions are made faster.
This model is closer to the Israeli one —
where the army lives not by paper plans, but by the reality of the battlefield.
Israel and Syria as two reflections
Why did Bezuhla choose these two comparisons?
Because both states are symbols of extremes.
Israel is a small country that survives thanks to constant readiness.
Syria is a country where a prolonged war destroyed the very fabric of the state.
Both lived under fire, but one strengthened, the other collapsed.
Ukraine, according to Bezuhla, is now at a point between them.
The decision is not for politicians, but for the system
Bezuhla emphasizes:
it’s not about a choice at the level of slogans, but about structural changes.
As long as the army lives by inertia, as long as decisions are made “by template”, the country moves towards the Syrian scenario.
If the military vertical is renewed, a development strategy appears, clear terms and responsibility —
then Ukraine can move to the Israeli scenario, where war does not kill the state, but strengthens it.
Between survival and maturity
Maryana Bezuhla is not a military analyst or a diplomat.
She is part of the political system that sees it from the inside.
Her warning sounds like an attempt to stop the habit of waiting for a miracle.
Because there is no choice anymore —
either the country becomes stronger,
or it begins to crumble slowly, imperceptibly, from within.
“The Israeli scenario is not a dream, it’s work.
The Syrian one is not a nightmare, it’s inaction,” said Bezuhla.
Conclusion
Ukraine is not just at a crossroads, but at a moment of maturation.
The decisions made today will determine whether it becomes a country living under a shield or a country covered by the dust of history.
