Ukraine's leading English-language newspaper since 1995

Valentyn Nalyvaychenko, then chief of the Security Service of Ukraine, or SBU, reports on an operation against the Russian Federal Security Service on Feb. 2. (Ukrinform) Valentyn Nalyvaychenko, a diplomat and former director of the Security Service of Ukraine, known as the SBU, from 2006 until earlier this year, is now launching a political career. And it is one with ambitious aims. Ukraine, he said, needs a major overhaul from the bottom up. Like all opposition politicians, Nalyvaychenko criticizes the current government and sees no potential political partners among them. He also talked about political interference in the work of law enforcement agencies as a reason why no major criminal cases get solved in Ukraine, including during the five-year term of ex-President Viktor Yushchenko, whom Nalyvaychenko served.

What can you tell us about the most serious unsolved criminal cases, such as [ex-President Viktor Yushchenko’s poisoning, the 2000 murder case of journalist Georgiy Gongadze? Who is to blame that these cases have not gone to trial? You? The SBU? State prosecutors?

VN: “Let’s take any one of these cases. For example, the [Sept. 16, 2000] murder of journalist Georgiy Gongadze. The SBU found his head. We found [former Interior Ministry General Oleksiy] Pukach and put him in a prison cell. We did everything that we were supposed to do. We conducted the necessary forensic tests to prove the skull fragments belonged to Gongadze in order that he could be honorably laid to rest. Let me give you a direct answer. One of the biggest problems in solving these crimes is political interference in the work of investigative branches of Ukraine’s law enforcement agencies. Ask any investigator at the General Prosecutor’s Office and he will say the same thing. This is why even the most successful and thorough investigation can be blown out of the water.

Take Pukach, for example. We found him, but what next? I can’t give you an answer to that question because, for starters, I left the SBU, and, secondly, because state prosecutors are in charge of the case. Criminal suspects should be formally charged based on concrete evidence and their cases should go to court.

You can take any other case, for example Yushchenko’s poisoning. During 2007-08 I said that I was unable to convince Yushchenko to send the case to trial. By then all the forensic tests had been conducted and state prosecutors had done an excellent job accumulating evidence.

The SBU helped out and we were certain that the organizers of the crime were located outside of Ukraine. After all, what stopped the British from putting out an arrest warrant for [Russian businessman Andriy] Lugovoy for his alleged involvement in the poisoning of Alexander Litvinenko?


Valentyn Nalyvaychenko, the then head of the State Security Service, is crossing himself during a ceremony after making public formerly secret archives about churches in Sumy, Kharkiv and Chernihiv regions. (UNIAN)


KP: Where does this political interference come from? From whom?

VN: “From politicians.”


KP: From which politicians?

VN: “Let me give a concrete example. A criminal case was opened against [ex-Prime Minister Yulia] Tymoshenko in 2003. The case was closed in 2005. And the same criminal case was re-opened again in 2010.”


KP: Hundreds of hours of recordings made in 2000 document [then presidential administration chief Mykola Azarov] and [former president] Leonid Kuchma engaging in criminal activities, such as the Sloviansky Bank affair [in which Azaroz is implicated in using the criminal justice system to carry out a political vendetta against the bank’s owner, Borys Feldman, who was imprisoned for three-and-a-half years]. Former SBU chief [Volodymyr] Radchenko acquired these recordings. Are they evidence of anything?

VN: “All recordings received by illegal means should be thrown out. We already talked about why one resonant case didn’t go to trial -- because politicians used it for political purposes. When I was SBU chief, politicians and their assistants had become adept at manipulating [the Melnychenko recordings] to the point where they were actually scripting the conversations. ‘Look what equipment we have to do this,’ they said, using it to compose everything necessary to manipulate politicians. When we figured out what was going on, understood the equipment being used, it became clear that foreign intelligence agencies were involved … composing such conversations.

I think that everything recorded illegally, without the permission of state prosecutors, should be discarded. On the other hand, we were authorized to record [Lviv appellate court judge] Ihor Zvarych. But I was present along with a prosecutor. The prosecutor general and the head of the SBU’s Lviv office were informed. The recordings weren’t made in some kind of a secret operation, but as part of a criminal case. We documented 37 episodes [of bribery].” (Zvarych has yet to be tried, more than two years after the case surfaced).


KP: Mr. Nalyvaychenko. Could you please define your current standing? Are you now talking as a politician? Diplomat? Former Security Service of Ukraine (SBU) head?

VN: “Now I am a coordinator of a civic movement called Renewal of the Country. I had to take some time off, re-think and analyze my work as a diplomat and as SBU head and figure out what I should do next.”


KP: I bet your civil platform will grow into a political one…

VN: “First of all, we will create a program for the country is renewal where we define the trouble spots (unemployment, corruption, low wages) and define feasible solutions. Only after that can we start talking about shifting to a political format.”


KP: There are a lot of similar civic movements in Ukraine. Why does the country need this one? What distinguishes you from the existing ones?

VN: “This is a civic initiative. It’s neither a project created to support one particular political leader, neither a business project that would later serve the interests of its ‘investors.’ We promote grassroots initiatives, changing the country from the bottom up. I’ll explain: if we go to Donetsk or Ivano-Frankisk region, we define the most burning problems – be it environment, healthcare or social service issues -- and find ways to solve it on the local level. The next step is creating an efficient state budget based on the Renewal of the Country program that will allow us to attract both foreign and domestic investments and channel them into infrastructure projects.”


KP: But you have to be in the government. Otherwise how would you create or manage the state budget?

VN: “Not necessarily. We are a civic initiative and I don’t want to say ‘I won’t do anything before I am appointed prime minister.’ On the contrary. Our civic movement and those political parties who’d share our ideas are going to participate in the local elections. Poland did it – it empowered local communities to run their budgets, manage their own resources and now Poland is a European Union member. Of course, we’ll have to be represented in the national parliament in order to amend the legislation and make it more community-friendly.”


KP: You can get to the national parliament in two cases – either you find substantial financial support for your campaign or you join a major political party/bloc. Which way would you go?

VN: “I don’t want to seek financial support or [receive] party endorsement. It may sound like populism, but I want to seek public support. As for those parties represented in parliament, I don’t see any potential partners among them.

Especially after the vote on the so-called Kharkiv accords [April 21 pact in which Russia is allowed to keep its Black Sea Fleet in Ukraine until at least 2042 in exchange for Ukraine being granted preferential prices on imports of Russian natural gas this decade], we can neither join those who voted for those agreements, neither can we join those who allegedly opposed those. If you really oppose something, you should register for voting and vote against. Instead we had an egg-and-smoke-bombs-throwing performance. As for the funding, I would prefer the position of a civic movement that has a transparent funding.”


KP: How would you appraise the first 100 days of the new presidential administration and the State Security Service (SBU), especially in light of the recent scandal involving the SBU in Lviv?

VN: “As a citizen of Ukraine, I can absolutely say what my assessment is. For starters, the authorities promised to improve the standard of living and to increase the minimum pension and minimum wage. As far as I know, the president gathered together his people and said, ‘C’mon, guys, let’s come up with a plan.’ What kept them from coming up with one earlier? This is the reason for my first negative assessment.

Secondly, why aren’t they dealing with citizens honestly? They promised a minimum pension of Hr 1,300. Where is it? My father is a pensioner who spent his entire working life working on a hot factory floor.

He today receives a Hr 700 pension. What can we expect next?

With regards to military personnel, the new administration promised them apartments after the first year of service. I am all in favor of providing housing to those who work for the state, or at least offering them low interest loans (7 percent) to buy an apartment.”


KP: What about ensuring the rights and liberties of citizens?

VN: “We support the Stop Censorship movement. Ensuring the fundamental rights and liberties of citizens should not be empty words. The present authorities must understand that they came to power thanks to the fact that there existed freedom of speech for the past five years: They had every opportunity to criticize anyone they wished anyway they wanted, even uncouthly.”


KP: The incident involving the dean of the Ukrainian Catholic University?

VN: “You can call up the SBU spokeswoman and ask her how normal such a practice has now become for them. My position is as follows: In any European county, non-interference in the affairs of religious organizations, churches, students and journalists is paramount. This is especially true for Ukraine. In our bloody history, all repressions began with the destruction of the religious and intellectual elites.”


KP: How would assess agreements signed restoring closer ties between Russia and Ukraine?

VN: “Firstly, the Kharkiv agreement to extend the presence of the Russian Black Sea Fleet on Ukrainian territory is an infringement of Ukrainian sovereignty. Secondly, Ukraine as a result lost its de jure non-aligned neutral status as a result. Thirdly, the agreement detracts from Ukraine’s economic potential in general, not to mention the economic potential of Sevastopol and Crimea. The deal provides for removing a large portion of territory from Ukraine’s economy.

I am not only talking about losing hectares of land, but about losing ports, which could have been used for trade. In addition to the ports, Ukraine lost the use of tremendous infrastructure, two airports, wharves, etc. After the signing of the agreement, [Russian Federation Duma deputy Konstantin] Zatulin declared that Russia faces terrorist threats. Let him name the terrorist organizations, which threaten the Russian Black Sea Fleet. Ukrainian citizens live there.

We did everything in our power to ensure that there were no such threats to our citizens, the fleet, Crimea and Ukraine. I am sure that the SBU has sufficient means at its disposal to deal with counter intelligence and anti-terrorist issues on the peninsula. Secondly, since such an accord was signed, how do we interpret the law forbidding foreign intelligence operatives from operating on Ukrainian territory? I would like to dismiss the biggest myth – that the rented territory is outside of Ukrainian jurisdiction. Those 18,000 hectares are Ukrainian territory where Ukrainian laws apply. If you rent an apartment out, it doesn’t mean the tenant has the right to turn off your phone or do what he pleases. The arrangement should be agreed upon.

This is why it is simply untrue that some kind of special laws are in force [in Sevastopol] or that some kind of special status has been granted there. Most importantly, I would raise the issue of Russia recognizing once and for all that Sevastopol and Crimea are Ukrainian territory, irrespective of the lease agreement. Secondly, having signed such an agreement Russia, should now grant our enterprises access to gas and oil reserves in Asia. Without such reciprocity, the Kharkiv accord looks awful. Ukraine created an international legal precedent by receiving a discount on a commodity in return for giving up territory.


KP: Are there other threats to Ukraine’s territorial sovereignty?

VN: “Ukraine will be in a precarious position until it receives guarantees from all of its neighbors and the world’s largest international players, such as the United Nations, about its territorial integrity. This is why I stress that we have received no such guarantee from Russia.”


KP: Will the shift of Ukraine in Russia’s direction pull the country away from the West, as some foreign diplomats fear. Has it already?

VN: “I don’t think anything is achieved by pitting Russia against the West or vice versa. Ukraine should seek the best relations possible on a parity basis with Russia – although we are weak – while pursuing economic integration with Europe. I could discuss the balancing act at length, but the key goals should be European integration and stable relations with Russia, first and foremost in the economic sphere.


Kyiv Post staff writers Olesia Oleshko can be reached at oleshko@kyivpost.com and Peter Byrne can be reached at byrne@kyivpost.com.