Two pieces of news concerning this appeared on January 26th. The first: the American publication RealClearDefense analyzed the main problems gripping Ukraine in an article under the telling title "Ukraine's Problem is Ukraine." According to the Ukrainian publication Vesti which cited this article, Donald Trump is going to arrange an "audit" of the Ukrainian authorities by checking where Kiev has really allocated the funds received from the US under Barack Obama.
In short, Ukraine's main problems are named to be the following four:
1. the problematic organization of authorities caused by a large number of officials taking part in military strategy and procurement;
2. the absence of a unified strategic vision and budget accounting;
3. pro-Russian officials
4. overwhelming corruption
Let us note that the publication does not identify the biggest problem: the illegitimate status of the ruling Poroshenko regime and the former US administration's accountability for the violent overthrow of President Yanukovych.
The third point on the list is also questionable. Already in the first days following the victory of the Euromaidan, Ukrainian government agencies were decisively purged of any so-called "pro-Russian officials." In fact, this work was carried out long before. In the first half of 2010, the author of these lines more than once came into contact with Ukrainian deputies, politicians, and experts who constantly supplied reports on how the US and the West (including foundations from both the Democratic and Republican parties in the US, NATO humanitarian organizations, etc.) were consistently engaged in drawing the ruling Ukrainian elite into the channels of pro-Western policies. A system of work was organized with this aim. Trips were arranged for deputies, politicians, and experts (as well as budding young specialists) to visit the US and the opening of NATO centers at universities even in pro-Russian cities like Donetsk, etc. I'll emphasize that all of this was being carried out even during the presidency of Viktor Yanukovych, whom the leaders of the Euromaidan called "pro-Russian."
Thus, the purging of the Ukrainian political sphere of pro-Russian figures began long before the victory of the Euromaidan. After the victory of the Maidan, it became known that the US had allocated as much as $5 billion for the "democratization" of Ukraine. Part of this money was allocated for the outright bribery of Ukrainian politicians. There was also, of course, a hidden part of all this work including non-public negotiations and agreements with Ukrainian politicians on, among other things, personnel appointments. It is no coincidence that Yanukovych's presidential reign was marked by the career advancements of collaborators and the disappearance and even arrest of genuinely pro-Russian politicians. The most famous among the latter examples is the leader of the Odessa-based Rodina Party, Igor Markov.
Thus, by the time of the coup, no more "purging" of the Ukrainian political field of pro-Russian forces was really needed. But why did this American publication dedicate an entire point on an extra short list of Ukraine's problems to this?
A correct answer to this question would be possible if we possessed information on this publication. Does it speak for the representatives of the new US President's entourage? Or do Ukrainian lobbyists in the US perhaps (but not necessarily) opposed to President Poroshenko stand behind it? I am inclined towards the second possibility.
It is obvious that such lobbies are attempting to misdirect Donald Trump by pointing to the consequences (corruption) and not the reasons (illegitimacy and criminal government) for Ukraine's problems.
Donald Trump would be wise to refrain from being immersed in European chaos, and instead busy himself with cleaning the Augean stables of America before he is dragged into being involved in the Ukrainian mess. This obviously betrays the interests of the Ukrainian lobbyists in the US. Undoubtedly, in the near future we will see very high media and political activity on the part of these lobbyists.
The second news item mentioned above comes directly from the corridors of power in Ukraine.
Official Kiev is seriously concerned by the possibility of a rapprochement between the new US administration and Russia. Ukrainian officials have followed Ukrainian lobbyists in the US in the fight against a possible agreement between Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin.
On January 26th, the second noteworthy news item was Ukrainian Deputy Foreign Minister Elena Zerkal's ultimatum presented to Washington and Moscow. In her words, Ukraine should have a word in any agreement that might be reached between the US and Russia on settling the Donbass conflict.
"Since we are talking about the future of our country, we do not want to be excluded from negotiations. We do not want to be a playing card. We want to be a player," Zerkal told Reuters.[1]
Zerkal also stated that she does not believe in a "gentleman's agreement" and supports Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko's call for the West to keep the sanctions on Russia. Yet the Ukrainian foreign minister does not propose to include Russia in negotiations with Western countries during which the question of prolonging the anti-Russian sanctions is discussed.
The Ukrainian foreign minister's statement speaks to the confusion, if not panic, that is gripping Kiev since Donald Trump's inauguration. My sources with connections in Ukraine have confirmed that this attitude is prevalent in the ranks of the Ukrainian Armed Forces. The opinion of Ukrainian "volunteers" from the neo-Nazi battalions boils down to a simple formula: "Trump will gift Ukraine to Putin." Poroshenko's entourage, as far as we can judge, fears something else much more: a financial and political audit of the actions of the current Ukrainian leadership conducted by the US. This threat appears to be more real than the fears of Ukraine's neo-Nazis. After all, changing out a failed leader for a more effective one is a well tested method of American policy in the former USSR, as in the case of Georgia, where the "Rose Revolution" overthrew pro-American President Eduard Shevardnadze and brought to power pro-American Mikhail Saakashvili.
The ruling Ukrainian establishment's ill-concealed panic is paradoxically masked by categorical statements. Official Kiev's opinion is expressed in the form of essentially an ultimatum. The foreign ministry's statement is not an attempt to secure rights for Ukraine over the course of bilateral negotiations between the US and Russia, but an attempt to impose Ukraine's monopoly over relations with Russia on Trump.
Ukraine's sense of tact has once again failed it. Even the inept and foolish attempt to interfere in the American elections did not teach the Ukrainian establishment elementary rules of political etiquette. A failed client state is demanding with an ultimatum that its conditions, which are unjust and absurd, be fulfilled by the patron state. It is unlikely that such systematic exposures of Ukraine's fundamental character will go unnoticed by the new US President's entourage and the new State Department leadership.
[1] At the time of writing, a new scandal erupted in Ukrainian media. The Ukrainian foreign ministry stated that Elena Zerkal's words were misinterpreted by journalists from the American edition of Reuters and their meaning distorted. Apparently, her scandalous ultimatum has made it way up to the leadership of the Ukrainian foreign ministry and state. And now Ms. Zerkal is trying to save her reputation and position. This new scandal merely confirms our conclusion on the complete, widespread lack of any kind of political tact that is peculiar to the Ukrainian political scene. Times change, but Ukrainian politics remains in the past.
Reader Comments