Ukraine’s secret police, the SBU, is investigating several of oligarch Viktor Pinchuk’s recent statements. In response to MP Dmytro Yarosh formal inquiry, SBU chief Vasyl Shcherbak wrote on Facebook: “Semantic textual examination of the Ukrainian national, Viktor Pinchuk, has been initiated.” He added that it would be part of criminal proceedings on charges of attempts on national territorial integrity and inviolability, attempts to organize groups or an organization of terrorists and funding acts of terrorism.
Viktor Pinchuk’s name has been in the limelight for the past month. His article, carried by The Wall Street Journal in late December 2016, met with an avalanche of public criticism. He wrote that Ukraine should defend its right to self-determination, protection of its territorial integrity and building a successful country; that Moscow should fulfill its commitments under the Minsk Agreements 2014 and 2015: “It should ensure respect of the cease-fire and withdrawal of its troops and heavy weapons, which she did… but that could be part of a broader pattern, in which we go on the painful compromises for peace.” He went on to suggest that Ukraine temporarily exclude EU membership from a list of its declared short-term goals. And further on: “Although we are faithful to its position that Crimea is part of Ukraine and must be returned, Crimea should not become a hindrance to an agreement to end the war in the east, which should conclude by the principle of justice… The conflict in the east was initiated from abroad and is not a genuine movement for autonomy or a civil war. Conditions for fair elections will not be satisfied until Ukraine takes the territory under full control. But, we may have to ignore this fact and come to terms with elections in local authorities.”
What startled Viktor Pinchuk out of his long political reverie and brought him in the scandalous limelight? Political analyst Viktor Nebozhenko told The Day: “There are two possible scenarios that could make Victor Pinchuk politically active. Number one is an oligarch turf war, involving President Petro Poroshenko. There is a difference between appealing to the people and exerting pressure on an international scope, voicing the Kremlin’s opinion, among other things. Viktor Pinchuk may have also tried to save face, considering his fiasco when he banked on [Hillary] Clinton. Even so, the man appears to be screwing up. He has long pretended to stand outside and above politics, but then he acted as a public person. If nothing happens after his article [carried by The Wall Street Journal], I see no reasons for making any conclusions regarding his political future. Otherwise, it would be another example of politicizing the remainder of our oligarchs, those who are still trying to find their place in the sun. On the other hand, his sudden scandalous public appearance as an oligarch is significant, given the circumstances. I can’t say that Viktor Pinchuk is totally dependent on the Kremlin, even though he is conveying their messages. Figuring out this situation takes time; we have to wonder whether this is the beginning of the oligarchs’ war against President Poroshenko or their attempt to find a place in a new international order.”
Interestingly, Moscow joined the game forthwith (the Kremlin could have predicted or engineered the situation). Russia’s propaganda machine started feeding data to the government-controlled media, saying that there are businesspeople in Ukraine, people in the political elite prepared to reach compromises and re-establish the neighborly relations with Russia, but that official Kyiv is throwing a monkey wrench in the works. Some Russian channels even suggested that Viktor Pinchuk become the next presidential candidate, although President Vladimir Putin’s Press Secretary Dmitry Peskov promptly responded: “We have no pro-Kremlin candidates. The Ukrainian people must decide who is worth becoming [the next] president.”
According to Viktor Nebozhenko, Russia’s suggestion that Viktor Pinchuk become a presidential candidate is a way to pass the buck, to the detriment of the current head of state, Petro Poroshenko. Mr. Poroshenko didn’t accept the self-styled Donbas National Republic and its rigged elections. This, of course, angered Vladimir Putin who is likely to do his best to pressure the Ukrainian president, using all means, among them Viktor Pinchuk.
Despite Mr. Peskov’s diplomatic statement about the Ukrainian people having the final say in choosing their presidential candidates, facts from Ukraine’s latter day history show that Russia has long been tampering with Ukraine’s political system, that it is part of the daily routine for the Kremlin, starting with the 1994 presidential campaign when Moscow helped Leonid Kuchma become the second president of Ukraine.
He ruled his country for 10 years, after being re-elected in 1999, using Russia’s spin doctors and their “Red threat” technology vs. communist presidential candidate Petro Symonenko. In 2004, Leonid Kuchma lost his third term bid, whereupon he and his Russian friends banked on Viktor Yanukovych, but then came the Maidan and the Orange Revolution. Mr. Kuchma’s friend, ex-president of Poland Alexander Kwasniewski, future head of YES, helped resolve the situation. Leonid Kuchma was guaranteed personal immunity and the newly elected head of state, Viktor Yushchenko, had his presidential powers curbed.
Russia kept tampering with Ukraine’s politics. Viktor Yushchenko kept fighting Yulia Tymoshenko while Ukrainian society was getting increasingly disillusioned. In 2010, Viktor Yanukovych became President of Ukraine. He was the Kremlin’s choice and they used him first to help destroy Ukraine’s national security system by assigning important governmental posts to people who were sure to obey orders from Moscow. Viktor Yanukovych later tried to have his way, attempting to build a vertical command structure, flirting with the European Union, promising to sign an association agreement. Russia stepped in, in its usual ruthlessly aggressive manner. Followed Euromaidan, Russia meant to cause chaos in Ukraine and then get Yanukovych out of Kyiv, invade Crimea and Donbas. At the time, the interests of the Kremlin (e.g., making Viktor Yanukovych step down) and those of some Ukrainian oligarchs met. There is no denying the possibility that Viktor Pinchuk was among them. Back in 2011, the Prosecutor General’s Office of Ukraine [popularly known as GPU] pressed complicity charges against ex-president Leonid Kuchma, Viktor Pinchuk’s father-in-law, in the Gongadze-Podolsky case. Leonid Kuchma looked unnerved, attending GPU interrogations, but then Viktor Pinchuk invited Leonid Kuchma to YES where well-paid experts and journalists gave him a dressing down, broadcast live worldwide.
This took place in Yalta when Crimea was part of Ukraine. In fact, Leonid Kuchma declared in May 2014, almost as soon as Russia had occupied the peninsula, that “We have lost Crimea and I believe that getting it back is unrealistic, considering that Russia has played vabanque. Leonid Kuchma was among those who signed the Minsk Agreements and Viktor Pinchuk’s “painful compromises” are in sync with the family’s previous tactic and strategy.
“I don’t think that Viktor Pinchuk is playing a solo game. Pinchuk spells Kuchma and vice versa. Everyone should’ve ignored Viktor Pinchuk’s ‘business luncheon’ in Davos. He should’ve been boycotted. Too bad not all of our politicians and journalists have passed this ‘lice test,’ Kyiv-based journalist Halyna Plachynda told The Day.
Other analysts said that Viktor Pinchuk’s unexpected public appearance, his ideas, are an attempt to take advantage of the new geopolitical situation, playing into the Kremlin and Washington’s hand, considering President Trump’s statements concerning Ukraine. The man is reserving the right to act as a go-between, helping the players of the world’s biggest chess game resolve the Ukrainian issue (having nothing to do with our national interests, of course). In a word, Ukraine’s foreign policy, now actually under Viktor Pinchuk’s control, leaves a lot of questions that remain to be answered, especially with regard to the United States.
“Considering the current geopolitical situation, three years after the Maidan, one can assume that our foreign policy has been ineffective. Not so long ago, we believed that the States would help us, now we aren’t sure and less sure with each passing day. Our country is now left to fend for itself while Russia remains an influential power and keeps building its potential. Vladimir Putin is shaking hands with the world’s political leaders and no one appears to be determined to change the situation. Ukrainian problems are not raised on the upper echelons of power here or on an international level. We don’t have ambassadors in about a dozen and one half countries. In a number of countries, our ambassadors haven’t been replaced after the [latest] Maidan. Another manifestation of our [inner] crisis is that we don’t know where we’re heading for. Our president doesn’t and nor does Viktor Pinchuk or anyone else of the Establishment,” said Halyna Plachynda.
Then what is the SBU’s criminal investigation into Viktor Pinchuk’s statements all about? Viktor Nebozhenko believes that it is President Poroshenko’s response to Viktor Pinchuk, that he wants to pressure him in return, that SBU is acting to serve the president’s interests: “Petro Poroshenko tried to keep the situation under control, but he was obviously surprised to read Viktor Pinchuk’s article in The Wall Street Journal, and he didn’t like it.”
Says political analyst Kost Bondarenko, author of several books dedicated to Leonid Kuchma (rian.com.ua): “I don’t support any conspiracy theories, but in this particular case it is safe to assume that they’re trying to replace Viktor Pinchuk as a major negotiator in the talks between Ukraine and the United States. If so, their main task is to prevent Viktor Pinchuk from keeping the position he held when maintaining contact between Ukraine and the Clintons. There’s no way to throw Viktor Pinchuk behind bars, but there is sure to be a hullabaloo, and that someone else will take over the mission of establishing and maintaining contact with President Donald Trump.”
Viktor Pinchuk’s public appearance, after a long low-profile period, also means that he is playing a new game. A game that began in Ukraine and across the ocean, with the new resident of the White House. The bad news is that Ukraine’s national interests are a bargaining chip under the circumstances, particularly because Ukrainian society hasn’t succeeded in learning from past mistakes. There is a big difference between uprisings, replacing the regime, and getting politically organized, establishing embassies and consulates that can properly represent Ukraine’s national interests. This, sadly, remains a daydream. It is also necessary to remember high profile cases like those of Gongadze and Podolsky; they must remain under control, exposed to public pressure [rather than kept cold]. Otherwise the impunity of those involved over so many years, including the Kuchma-Pinchuk dynasty, will encourage others [to commit acts of crime], among them people holding the highest posts in Ukraine. Besides, it is a proven fact that any administration that refuses to solve such high profile cases falls into a similar trap in the end.
