The Ukraine is back in the news, and again it is because of a phone call or two, this time leaked by a Ukrainian politician named Andriy Derkach. One concerned then Vice President Joe Biden speaking to then Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko following Donald Trump’s unexpected election victory. Poroshenko spoke of his desire to convince the Obama administration to grant the Ukraine visa-free status, allowing Ukrainian citizens to visit the U.S. without a visa, as was allowed most European countries. He also wanted Biden to visit the Ukraine on an upcoming national holiday, but Biden declined, implying it was due to problems with Trump’s botched transition, and the need to wait until there were Trump people he could speak to who had the required security clearances. Nothing “odd” about any of that. In a previous “leaked” conversation, whose contents are already known, Biden assured Poroshenko that he would follow through on his promise that the Ukraine would receive a $1 billion loan for the sacking of Prosectuor General Viktor Shokin.
The Washington Post reported that in response to these “revelations,” current Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky declared in a press conference that “the conversations between the two leaders might be perceived, qualified as high treason. ‘As to Poroshenko and Biden, yes, I have heard, I will comment. I think it’s not the last sign that Ukrainians will see. The prosecutors, law enforcement bodies should react. The prosecutor general of Ukraine registered criminal proceedings at the request of deputy [Andriy] Derkach yesterday. They will investigate.”
Now, let’s get some things straight here. Why would Derkach release these frankly “ordinary” conversation now? Why would Zelensky be making outlandish claims of “treason”? And why would anyone be mad at Shokin?
First Shokin, who was considered to be one of the most corrupt public figures in the Ukraine in, well, a long time. In his capacity as a prosecutor he blocked the investigation into the origins of the snipers who fired on protesters in what became known as the “Maidan Massacre” during the Ukrainian Revolution of 2014, that toppled the pro-Russian government of Viktor Yanukovych; many believed that Yanukovych called in for help from his Russian “friends,”and they supplied a party of snipers to shoot on the almost entirely unarmed protesters. Like William Barr, Shokin was accused of using his position to conceal evidence of crimes and block investigations into the activities of certain high-level political figures.
In 2015 the EU and the U.S. demanded the resignation of Shokin, both threatening to withhold aid packages to the Ukraine unless he was gone. In a bizarre chain of events, Shokin agreed to “resign” in February of 2016, following street protests demanding his ouster, but four weeks later he decided he hadn’t “resigned” after all, and he ordered a raid on the offices of the Anti-Corruption Action Center, which among other cases had exposed the “diamond prosecutors,” who apparently extorted jewelry and other valuables from people they threatened with prosecution. Soon after the raid, street protesters forced Shokin out for good. Yet this past February a court ruled that investigators must open a probe on Biden's efforts to get Shokin fired--ignoring the fact that not only was this the EU and the IMF’s’s demand as well, but ultimately it was public pressure that forced Shokin out.
There have been allegations that Shokin had been pressured by then president Poroshenko to “wind down” the investigation of Burisma, but others in his office said that Shokin--who had been blocking investigations or failing to conduct them in regard to the activities of the country’s political and business elite, did not require pressure to do nothing. Claims that Poroshenko was doing Biden a “favor” because his son was on the Burisma board ignore the fact that Hunter Biden was not even on the Burisma board when the initial investigation into Bursima began; it’s focus was on the Ministry of Ecology’s alleged granting of “special permits” to Burisma from 2010 and 2012.
Who is Derkach? We’ll let the U.S. Treasury Department tell us who he is, with this press release just a week ago:
Today, the Department of the Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) designated four Russia-linked individuals for attempting to influence the U.S. electoral process. Russia uses a variety of proxies to attempt to sow discord between political parties and drive internal divisions to influence voters as part of Moscow’s broader efforts to undermine democratic countries and institutions. In the United States, Russia has used a wide range of influence methods and actors to target our electoral process, including targeting U.S. presidential candidates.
Treasury designated Andrii Derkach (Derkach) pursuant to Executive Order (E.O.) 13848 for his efforts to influence the 2020 U.S. presidential election. Derkach, a Member of the Ukrainian Parliament, has been an active Russian agent for over a decade, maintaining close connections with the Russian Intelligence Services. Derkach has directly or indirectly engaged in, sponsored, concealed, or otherwise been complicit in foreign interference in an attempt to undermine the upcoming 2020 U.S. presidential election. Today’s designation of Derkach is focused on exposing Russian malign influence campaigns and protecting our upcoming elections from foreign interference. This action is a clear signal to Moscow and its proxies that this activity will not be tolerated. The Administration is working across the U.S. Government, and with state, local, and private sector partners, to make the 2020 election secure.
“Andrii Derkach and other Russian agents employ manipulation and deceit to attempt to influence elections in the United States and elsewhere around the world,” said Secretary Steven T. Mnuchin. “The United States will continue to use all the tools at its disposal to counter these Russian disinformation campaigns and uphold the integrity of our election system.”
From at least late 2019 through mid-2020, Derkach waged a covert influence campaign centered on cultivating false and unsubstantiated narratives concerning U.S. officials in the upcoming 2020 Presidential Election, spurring corruption investigations in both Ukraine and the United States designed to culminate prior to election day. Derkach’s unsubstantiated narratives were pushed in Western media through coverage of press conferences and other news events, including interviews and statements.
Between May and July 2020, Derkach released edited audio tapes and other unsupported information with the intent to discredit U.S. officials, and he levied unsubstantiated allegations against U.S. and international political figures. Derkach almost certainly targeted the U.S. voting populace, prominent U.S. persons, and members of the U.S. government, based on his reliance on U.S. platforms, English-language documents and videos, and pro-Russian lobbyists in the United States used to propagate his claims.
Treasury has seized any assets that Derkach might possess in the U.S., and no U.S. citizen can engage in any property or financial transactions with him. Rudy Giuliani, has naturally denied using any of Derkach’s “evidence” in that “investigation” of the Bidens that we’ve heard next to nothing of substance about, probably because there is nothing “there.” What motivation would Derkach have to release the Biden conversations now? Because he thinks that if he “helps” Trump, maybe he will force the Treasury Department to “ease” off of him? That is the only thing that makes any “sense.”
And what about Zelensky, a former “comedian” who was supposed to provide a bit of “fresh air” to the political atmosphere? In a piece before Zelensky was elected, Foreign Policy warned that he might not be up to the job. On the Ukrainian television show Servant of the People, Zelensky played the character of president. What it seemed to reveal was that the comedian Zelensky had little understanding of political realities, and perhaps a Russian-friendly perspective:
Unforgivable is the absence from the show of Russia or Russian President Vladimir Putin. In its alternate universe, Crimea and Donbass are not occupied. There is no war. There are no deaths. There is no mention of Russian attempts to quash Ukrainian independence since 1991. This curious absence suggests either that Zelensky, who serves as the show’s executive producer, has no idea how to deal with a very real existential threat to Ukraine or, far worse, that he doesn’t believe that there is one. At best, then, a President Zelensky would be prone to serious mistakes in his relations with Putin; at worst, he might be willing to make concessions that would hollow out Ukrainian sovereignty.
In contrast, then president Poroshenko
…consistently rejected Putin’s line and striven to make Ukraine a viable nation and state. In large measure, he has succeeded. Ukraine has a strong army that has fought the Russians and their Donbass supporters to a standstill. The country is increasingly integrated into Western institutions and is expanding its ties to the rest of the world. Poroshenko’s administration has adopted a raft of positive political, economic, social, and cultural reforms, and it has effectively left the Russian sphere of influence.
By contrast, if Servant of the People is any guide, Zelensky may well roll back these achievements and effectively bring Ukraine back into the so-called Russian world.
As we recall, Zelenskt received some unwanted attention during the impeachment proceedings against Trump. He was still learning the ropes during a “summit” with Vladimir Putin last year, that was refereed by France and Germany; no agreement was reached on the issues of the Crimea and the Russian-controlled portions in eastern Ukraine, and Putin was clearly displeased with Zelensky’s refusal to cave-in to Russian demands for an “autonomous” slice of the Ukraine. But non-politicians like Zelensky (and Trump) who are inexperience in the governing process, have also been accused of having autocratic tendencies to abuse of power. Zelensky has been accused of not just being unconcerned about on-going corruption in the country, but guilty of corruption himself. Zelensky is also accused of putting forward laws to regulate the media which put too much power in the hands of government-controlled “regulators,” who could be political appointees doing the bidding of the president in order to censor or stifle a free press.
While Zelensky has put forward some positive moves, like privatizing state-owned business and land, many of the “elites” are contemptuous of his background, and he has placed inexperienced people in key positions of government, which has led, according to Foreign Policy, “Mistakes and missteps” that “have become all too frequent, especially in parliament and government. Confusion in the corridors of power abounds, including in some legislative committees and in several ministries and government agencies.”
So what does all of this tell us? One, that as far as Joe Biden is concerned, there is nothing “there,” except that unlike Trump, he had a positive working relationship with who at the time was the Ukrainian president. Two, there were legitimate reasons for the ouster of Shokin--who was like the fox guarding the hen house of corruption--and pressure from outside the country (including by the U.S. government) ultimately was not what had forced him out of office.
Third, anything coming from Derkach must be understood to be coming from an agent of Russia, and his actions are nothing more or less than an attempt to meddle in the 2020 election on behalf of Trump; furthermore, what we heard on those phone conversations revealed nothing illegal going on, certainly not anything near Trump’s attempt to blackmail Zelensky into interfering in the election on his behalf. Four, thus far Zelensky has been what many thought he would be--a fish out of water, someone Ukraine’s elites have a difficult time taking seriously. But while Zelensky did put up brave front in his first meeting with Putin, he is almost helpless to stop what Russia ultimately intends to do because of his inexperience.
The Ukraine itself, as Irvin Studin of Global Brief magazine noted, is still one of those newly-created countries who have found “no stable algorithm has been divined for peaceful transitions of power at the centre of post-Soviet government. With the exception of the three Baltic states – Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania – the decision-making in Minsk, as in Moscow, Bishkek, Astana, Dushanbe, Baku and Yerevan, is driven by a survivalist instinct and improvisation appropriate to any young state – and all post-Soviet states are very young – whose leadership understands that leaving power typically yields one of three fates: death, prison or exile. A taxi driver in the Ukrainian port city of Odessa said it best when he told me, in famous Odessa humour, in 2005: ‘Our politicians are either in jail, have been in jail, or are otherwise going to jail.’”
We here in the U.S. should just do what we claim needs to be done, and that is to just ignore anything coming out of places like the Ukraine until after the election.
No comments:
Post a Comment