Whether it is at the Dacha BBQ with uncle Vanya, or whether it is listening to opinions from local friends and colleagues which are more formed by the full on information assault, Ukrainian affairs can get painted in all sorts of weird ways.
That an important and developing and reforming nation of 45 million people right on the borders of Europe deserves to have more dedicated journalists seems obvious to me, but, that Ukraine can be done a disservice by Moscow-based journalists is the reality, sometimes dangerous, that we are faced with.I have to say that one of the Moscow-based correspondents I most admire is Shaun Walker of The Guardian.
I often find myself agreeing with his analysis, I find his observations to be generally accurate and often the way that he puts them across can be quite funny, I disagree with him from time to time but have found him open to being reasonably challenged. In my last exchange with him he tweeted photos of Azov Regiment fighters inside Boryspil Airport, apparently placed there by non-other than Interior Minister Arsen Avakov himself, to arrest non-other than super-oligarch Dmytro Firtash.
My simple response to that tweet was; “Bullshit!”
At the end of that exchange, I offered to buy Shaun a beer next time he’s in Kyiv, because as it turned out he was largely correct.You see, from my perspective, there were a few things wrong with the proposed scenario. Number one was just the mention of the name Azov.
The go-to bad guy for the Russian media was Azov for a very long time, their star rose as the juggernaut of nonsense surrounding the much fabled “Pravy Sector” ran out of steam and credibility. I automatically start out treating claims about either group with a pinch of salt. But, really, that the Interior Minister would choose to involve this group in such a high profile arrest when he has so many other forces at his disposal? That just can’t be true. That members of Azov would be permitted, by a minister, to take weapons airside? Rubbish.
For a variety of reasons this event looked to be completely made up. I owe Shaun a beer because in fact this was not made up. The only open question is whether they were Azov or some other grouping, they had no insignia, but, really, the minister did indeed ignore all the other more professional law enforcement bodies that are under his command and allow a group of men with automatic weapons to form a reception committee for Firtash. Mind boggling. But true.
My respect for Shaun now well-stated, here follows an analysis of some comments in his recent article.
To set the scene, Walker is in Vienna, meeting with the man who was spared extradition to the US on what certainly does like politically timed charges.
Political timing is very probably why it has also taken 10 years to get to an official judgment on the already-known facts of the Alexander Litvinenko murder and a sad indictment of the way in which such matters are not simply matters of justice for countries in “the west” which are dealt with as and when they sadly arise, but that in fact some things can, disgracefully, be swept aside and justice can be denied for a variety of reasons, motivations and interests.
Walker suggests that sidelining Firtash “may have been part of a hands-on strategy designed to birth a new pro-European government.” This is the first instance of Moscow think that strikes me in the article. While it is reasonable to suggest that sidelining Firtash would have stopped him from hindering (significantly, which he is capable of) a pro-EU vector for Ukraine, the fact is that the movement which would bring about said “pro-European government” belongs to the Ukrainian people. Nobody else.
The Ukrainian people have proven several times that they will dictate their own destiny. Their future is not decided for them, but by them.
The next paragraph says that “The Maidan protests were triggered when Yanukovych pulled out of the [EU Association Agreement] deal and said he would turn towards Russia instead.”
Which is common thinking, the beginning part of the sentence is correct, the second part is an urban myth widely accepted as true and often repeated. The assumption at the time was that rejecting closer ties to the EU meant eventually joining Russia’s Customs Union instead, but actually neither Yanukovych nor his Azarov-led government offered much in the way of explanation.
They certainly did not say at the time, at least not publicly, that they “would turn towards Russia instead” and when noted economist Edward Lucas suggested in late November, when the revolution was already well under way, that this did indeed mean that a backroom deal had been done for Ukraine to join the Customs Union he was heavily criticized for scare mongering.
Firtash is directly quoted then, “We can’t be without Russia, because for us it’s a huge market. But we don’t want to lose Europe either. Why do we have to choose?” and (note, the writer essentially repeats this in his own words in the next paragraph) the response to that flawed logic is that Ukraine wasn’t at all being forced to choose and would have been perfectly entitled to maintain all kinds of trade ties with Russia, nothing about the EU association agreement limited Ukraine’s trade with Russia or forced Ukraine to choose one over the other, notably, it is only Russia’s post-revolution aggression to Ukraine that has done that.
Going on to state that while there is “no evidence” to back up the conspiracy theories of Russia state media (note, “state”) that the revolution was a “US plot” there does appear to be “signs that Washington was pushing for personnel changes, with Assistant U.S. Sectary of State Victoria Nuland playing the key role.”
This is backed up by recollections from former Ukrainian Prime Minister Mykola Azarov (now resident in Moscow) and then the infamous “F**k the EU” conversation. As for Azarov’s recollections, he’s describing the US advice at the time, Dec. 10, 2013, to bring an end to the crisis by forming a “unity government” in partnership between the then authorities and opposition.
That seems, in hindsight, to have been good and sensible advice.
As for the “F**k the EU” tape, I am surprised that this is even being raised. Really. If anyone thinks that a similar conversation about the merits and abilities of the people who could possibly come to power wasn’t being had in the Kremlin at the same time, they’re looking at this from a very one-sided position.
Of course there was. No doubt those Kremlin conversations included who could most easily be bribed or persuaded to keep Ukraine in Russia’s orbit as well. And, finally, in the conversation the people referred to are “Klitch, Yats,” and Oleg Tyahnybok. Tyahnybok is where now? Not in government, nowhere near it.
Who’s missing from that discussion? Only the man who is now the head of state, President Petro Poroshenko. “Klitch” isn’t in the government either. If that was the US dictating who would succeed Yanukovych and Azarov, they evidently didn’t get their wishes fulfilled.
“It certainly showed that they [the State Department] were more closely involved that might have be expected in Ukrainian political appointments,” claims Walker.
Sorry, it just doesn’t. It might be common thinking in Moscow that this is the case and the circumstantial evidence leads us to this conclusion, but, actually, after the revolution Poroshenko threw his hat in the ring, and (to repeat myself) the election of the present leaders of Ukraine, “belongs to the Ukrainian people. Nobody else. Their future is not decided for them, but by them” – at the ballot box.
Towards the end of the article there is mention of a meeting in Vienna between Poroshenko, Vitali Klitschko and Firtash; and the result of that meeting. “Soon after the encounter Klitschko … pulled out of the presidential race leaving Poroshenko an easier run … Many analysts saw this as a sign that even after the Maidan revolution billionaires were still taking key political decisions.”
So, we have jumped now from the US State Department, and Nuland personally, being the key players in deciding who gets to sit at the top of the Ukrainian political tree, to a suggestion that a gas billionaire with alleged ties to alleged organized crime boss Semion Mogilevich (about whom he says, wrongly, “I knew Mogilevich, but so did half of Ukraine.”) being the kingmaker of Ukrainian politics. In the same article there exists both arguments, how can such obviously competing lines of thought coexist? A combination of the US State Department and Firtash, now there’s a conspiracy theory…
I prefer the reality that 45 million Ukrainian people are deciding their own fate, they did so in a revolution that brought down a corrupt regime, now they are doing so democratically and peacefully, the process is often flawed and there are problems with some of the old guard holding out and carrying on as if nothing has changed, but, things are changing.
The idea that the Vienna meeting was some kind of deal brokering by Firtash between Poroshenko and Klitschko is another story straight out of fantasy land but accepted urban myth influencing the logic of many in Moscow.
The fact is that Poroshenko and Klitschko know each other well enough and enjoy warm relations and they needed no third party to broker an agreement between them, let alone Firtash.
We don’t know for sure what that meeting was about, but my own theory (as valid as the “kingmaker” theory at the very least, but assisted by not lacking common sense) is that the meeting was about telling Firtash he no longer sits at the cash trough of the gas business between Russia and Ukraine.
And if I was having that meeting with that man I would want the one-time heavyweight champion of the world standing right behind me. At least there’s a shred of logic to this explanation.My offer to buy Shaun a beer stands. I hope he accepts.
One final point, the use of the term “civil war” to describe the unprovoked Kremlin designed and Russian supplied, directed and staffed military aggression against Ukraine is entirely incorrect.
