We have at least one high-profile case in Ukraine which has long served as a litmus test for the public, politicians, and journalists. We mean the Gongadze-Podolsky case, which has not seen legal closure in terms of identifying instigators of the crime after almost 16 years, though the public knows it all anyway. Why? Because everyone is to blame for it, including some journalists. For years, it was they who helped these instigators create a parallel reality, whitewash themselves and avoid responsibility. Some of them have even changed their line of work, for instance, by becoming MPs, although it did not help the search for truth in the slightest.
The latest story of MP Serhii Leshchenko having a nice whispered conversation with oligarch Viktor Pinchuk at a reception at the British embassy was only an episode that laid bare this long-standing disease. Its essence is not so much in the picture itself, taken by famous blogger Serhii Ivanov, although it is very significant and convincing, but rather in years-long activity of former Ukrainska Pravda journalists Serhii Leshchenko and Mustafa Nayyem. We outlined our reasoning in the article “Collective Duranty” (The Day, June 23, 2016). Let us note that the article aroused wide public response from journalists and users of social networks. Of course, its main characters – Leshchenko and editor of Istorychna Pravda Vakhtang Kipiani – were especially active. It makes no sense to retell all the details, since those who follow the story are aware of them anyway, so we would just like to draw our readers’ attention to some points.
First of all, the opposite side has provided no specific answers to the substance of the question, this substance being the Gongadze-Podolsky case, which Ukrainska Pravda has forgotten, to put it mildly, and its close contacts with the Kuchma-Pinchuk family. Instead, the response we heard consisted of dirt-slinging and hysterical attacks. Kipiani was the first to make an appearance, and he stooped as low as to call Oleksii Podolsky, a victim in the case, a “schizophrenic.” Then Leshchenko finally talked himself: he appeared in Natalia Vlashchenko’s talk show People. Hard Talk on TV channel 112 Ukraine and said in particular “yes, I did talk to Pinchuk and do not see any issue with it.” And then, editor-in-chief of Nashi Hroshi website Oleksii Shalaisky joined the fray (or was sent to join it) by posting a piece of outright libel on Facebook, where he called Den “a media flushing tank.”
In fact, our opponents can apply all their charges and reflections to themselves, because they describe how they frequently act. By the way, some comments of the other side use the expression “Den’s sect,” not even knowing that they thus classify as members of this circle, for example, judge Yurii Vasylenko, who was the first post-Soviet judge to launch a criminal case against a sitting president (Leonid Kuchma), or Viktor Shyshkin, the only judge of the Constitutional Court who opposed “Viktor Yanukovych’s Constitution” and has constantly stressed the danger of “the Kuchma virus” for Ukraine, or Oleksii Podolsky and Oleksandr Yeliashkevych (the latter served in the 2nd and 3rd Radas), who have been consistently fighting for the truth in the trial of those involved in the Gongadze-Podolsky case. So it is really an honor to be among such loners, a member of this “sect.”
Finally, we emphasize that this is not our vendetta on some journalists or serving MPs, who are used to walking on the dark side. For us, it is a conversation about the standards of journalism, using specific arguments offered by the high-profile crime which Den/The Day has covered for many years. And as we have learned, some members of the journalistic community fail this test.
“I HAVE NOT DETECTED ANY MANIPULATION IN ARTICLE ‘COLLECTIVE DURANTY’ AND IN MY QUESTION TO LESHCHENKO”
Natalia VLASHCHENKO, journalist, anchor of People. Hard Talk show on TV channel 112 Ukraine:
“Interviewing is my line of work. I ask questions, pay attention to high-rated publications, analyze the overall information flow. Therefore, after seeing the publication ‘Collective Duranty’ in Den/The Day and the active discussion it prompted, I put this question to my guest Leshchenko. That was my logic.
“The article was written quite expressively and deserved to be quoted. I have not detected any manipulation there: any journalist has the right to their opinion.
“Shalaisky is entitled to call my question manipulative, just like he is entitled to believe that the Earth is not round or Great Britain is not an island, for each of us has their own imagination, and I cannot influence it. But in general, we all ought to remember that everything in this world can be called a manipulation, if one so wishes. Shalaisky’s own posts or investigations are vulnerable to it as well. As for me, I do not do so, because my ethical principles prevent me from doing so until I have some proof.
“As for asking hot questions, Leshchenko, for instance, did so often when he was still a journalist. By the way, he reacted well to my questions, and we parted on good terms after the program. That is, he did not take these questions as insults or manipulations. But when Leshchenko said that hundreds of journalists attended the Pinchuk lunch over the years, he was certainly not completely sincere. Nothing like hundreds of Ukrainian journalists were there, because Pinchuk had a pretty stable press pool numbering 20 to 30 people.
“Generally, I think we should cease internecine warfare within the journalistic community and do what our colleagues around the world do, who stick to their direct responsibilities. Honesty or otherwise is for our audience to judge. Our task is to make quality products: TV programs, articles, radio broadcasts, and the ratings will show how good we are as journalists.”
“THE WAR IS BEING WAGED IN THE CAPITAL AS WELL. WE HAVE HERE FRONTLINES WITHOUT ROCKETS AND ARTILLERY, WITHOUT BURSTS OF GUNFIRE AND TRENCH WARFARE”
Valentyn TORBA, political columnist of Den/The Day:
“When the Donbas war started, I often recalled 1994, when we saw a lot of posters with a portrait of Kuchma and promises of bilingualism, while pro-Russian forces campaigned for Kuchma and appealed to ‘restoration of the Union.’ They talked about ‘a single people,’ eternal friendship with Russia, and so on. Later on, Kuchma himself said that the Holodomor in Ukraine was not worth mentioning and that it was not exactly an artificial famine. In 1997, now infamous Yanukovych was appointed as head of the Donetsk Oblast State Administration, while Oleksandr Yefremov came to lead Luhansk region. Billboards of the Russian Heritage appeared in the center of Luhansk, while exhibitions travelled to Rostov, Voronezh, and Moscow. Ultimately, local authorities replaced Ukrainian-language street names with Russified calques. Luhansk residents were then surprised to learn that, for example, they lived in Krapivnitskoho Street (instead of Kropyvnytskoho).
“The Donbas was surrendered precisely then. Neither Yanukovych nor Yefremov were to blame, but primarily Kuchma, who had these strongmen securing their regions’ votes for him in the coming election of 1999. It seemed obvious. And when I, having just escaped from occupied Luhansk to Kyiv in September 2014, was taking in calming blue-and-yellow colors of free land, I felt that here in the capital, people had long been fully aware of the causes and consequences of the tragedy that unfolded before our eyes. However, the presence of Kuchma at the talks in Minsk was an alarming hint to the contrary. My alarm intensified when I saw in Kyiv’s Podil district one of the pro-Russian provocateurs, notorious separatist Valerii Holenko. Even as Ukrainians were just coming to their senses after the Ilovaisk encirclement, Holenko and equally notorious separatist Volodymyr Prystiuk were preparing for an election. Worse still, they did it in Kyiv!
“Later on, prosecutors tried to bring Yefremov to justice during the signing of the Minsk II Agreements, but for some reason, their allegations were so poorly prepared that Yefremov got cleared of them in a year. All indicated that the war was not waged over Crimea, and not even over the Donbas. The war is being waged in the capital. We have here frontlines without rockets and artillery, without bursts of gunfire and trench warfare. However, the prevalence of people who emerged as politicians under Kuchma among our current leaders made clear that it would be hard to understand where this frontline runs.
“Moreover, those who positioned themselves as patriots and progressive journalists were coming to dine with Pinchuk and writing with reverence about the events he organized. At a presentation of Borys Lozhkin’s book, I came to see an exceptional show of servility when the Pinchuks appeared in the room. He was literally engulfed in a whirlwind of those who sought to shake hands with him and show some special attention. The frontline became even more compressed in my mind, and it was becoming even clearer that the confrontation continued between lone fighters and the overall vicious system that absorbed new adherents. People who looked like principled investigators proved to be long-nurtured projects of a specific clan, who eventually were allowed to enter the Verkhovna Rada and complete new tasks in service of the family.
“The parliament proved to be only a conventional feature, a formality in the overall power system of the dominant oligarchy. Another interesting fact is that even the president himself, in spite of his growing power, has already begun to seem not the head of state, but yet another element in the scheme of interest distribution. I even recalled Yanukovych, who, just like Poroshenko, felt confident as long as he did not try to attack the big boss, I mean Kuchma. And when I saw politicians of different generations coming to shake Kuchma’s hand and even leaving him their cards during the celebration of the 20th anniversary of the much-remade Constitution, the picture was finally complete. I saw only one person in the center of the room who urged politicians not to disgrace themselves by this overt devaluation of their own honor. It was Yeliashkevych, another victim of Kuchma’s orders. It turns out that here is where the true boundary line runs, where everyone, depending on their principles and moral qualities, either puts a checkpoint or plunges into collaboration.”
“IF ONE CALLS DEN A ‘SECT’ DUE TO ITS LONG-STANDING CONSISTENCY, LEVKO LUKIANENKO IS EQUALLY LIABLE TO BE CALLED A ‘SECTARIAN’”
Leonid FROSEVYCH, journalist, deputy editor-in-chief of Chas Kyivshchyny newspaper:
“Oligarch Pinchuk did much to whitewash reputation of Kuchma and conducted a media campaign to cover up the Gongadze-Podolsky case. So any politician or journalist should understand who they communicate with, and the public should know what issues were discussed during the conversation with such a notorious oligarch; otherwise, all of their further actions will be questionable.
“Den is almost alone, an islet which always stands its ground. Meanwhile, criticizing and accusing a newspaper of ‘dirty tricks’ when it raises fundamental questions is unfair and lacks any proof. At the same time, if one smiles at those who essentially plundered the country and never answered for their crimes, and still positions themselves as a truth-seeker and high-class journalist, it is just wrong.
“If one calls Den a ‘sect’ due to its long-standing consistency, Levko Lukianenko is equally liable to be called a ‘sectarian,’ since he often makes very biting speeches, just like Stepan Khmara and other prominent politicians and former dissidents. But it is an absurd opinion, which shows that these ‘colleagues’ have nothing to say in reply. They deploy stupid and ridiculous arguments that are not principled and consistent throughout. Most importantly, we and Den have from the beginning talked about those who plunged Ukraine into oligarchic dominance and such poverty.
“In my opinion, Den is a powerful media outlet which consistently highlights the problems of Ukraine in all their forms, ranging from economy to culture and politics. The newspaper takes a balanced, principled stand instead of playing along with clans, as many do in modern journalism, and thus it gets attacked. Unfortunately, the journalistic community is not consolidated and monolithic enough to call a spade a spade. Some of our colleagues act as if they got credentials to speak for the entire journalistic community or consider themselves holier than the Pope himself, but it should not be this way. If one is an investigative journalist or deals with hot topics, one has to stick to principles.”
“THE VAST MAJORITY OF OUR JOURNALISTS STILL EXHIBIT SOVIET MENTALITY”
Viktor SHYSHKIN, the first Prosecutor General of Ukraine (1991-93), Judge of the Constitutional Court of Ukraine (2006-15):
“If Leshchenko is a journalist, he can talk to anyone, including Satan himself. But if he is a politician, he can also talk to anyone, if he has requests to that end. However, Pinchuk is one of those anti-Ukrainian figures who have never been with Ukraine and did everything to rob it. These figures include his father-in-law Kuchma, whose hands are stained with the blood of Georgy Gongadze and probably other people as well. Therefore, in this case, one should not have a friendly talk with such a person, but rather a confrontation. For instance, I may approach Kuchma and tell him that he is a scoundrel, or approach Poroshenko and tell him that he collaborates with the enemy.
“Meanwhile, when Den is attacked over criticizing an MP, I would say that the vast majority of our journalists still exhibit Soviet mentality. When people are journalists, that is, people of a liberal profession, they shout they may do anything. When they move from a liberal profession to public service, they start to decry these same actions as infringement of privacy. It should be the opposite: if a person is a journalist, they are free and entitled to privacy. If a person gets a seat in the legislature or another public office, they cease to be free, others may and even are duty-bound to criticize them, and there is no offense in that. Moreover, the criticism cannot be wrong – an assessment can be, but one can defend against it. If you do not want to be under attack, keep clear of public offices. The only thing which should be unacceptable for journalists is distortion and releasing of false information.”
“THEY ARE REPLACING THEIR OLD AND ‘SPENT’ SERVANTS WITH A NEW GENERATION”
Serhii IVANOV, blogger:
“I tried to explore the phenomenon of people who consider the Kuchma administration an era of stability. These people forget that it was under Kuchma that the fundamental rights of citizens were first infringed. It was under him that the oligarchy strengthened and flourished in Ukraine. Kostiantyn Hryhoryshyn, Rinat Akhmetov, etc., they all obtained their positions in business under Kuchma. As a former law-enforcement officer, I can say that in the 1990s, the Luhansk criminal gang was eliminated to make way for Donetsk gangsters on orders from the very top. That is, the Kuchma administration, despite its fake liberalism, actually was completely authoritarian. Moreover, Kuchma’s policy was pro-Russian. Do not forget that, for example, Luhansk region was then ruled by head of the state administration Yefremov, who brought protection money to Kuchma, while the region’s high performance was maintained thanks to low-ranking officials, professionals who never earned a thousandth of Yefremov’s riches. That is, Kuchma actually allowed those who were loyal to him to plunder the country. For ordinary people, it was a time of poverty.
“The public perception is that Pinchuk is the richest person in Ukraine. In fact, Pinchuk is just Kuchma’s son-in-law. He did much to whitewash the reputation of Kuchma, including through his influence with journalists. The public is glad to see art centers and various colorful events organized by Pinchuk. He creates the image of a philanthropist for himself, going as far as to fight the AIDS, but for some reason, he does not fight the Russian aggression, because he is not financing any Ukrainian battalion, in contrast to, say, Ihor Kolomoisky. Western politicians enjoy attending his events, and many journalists are getting bribed there. All this creates a background for the misleading impression that Pinchuk, and hence Kuchma, is a force for the good.
“Therefore, the main oligarch in this country is not really Pinchuk, but rather Kuchma. Moreover, Kuchma is the ‘godfather’ of the Ukrainian oligarchy, and this is the worst of his legacy. He infected Ukraine with this virus and all its vices that were formed as early as during the Soviet era. Back then, the caste of elite untouchables was already being formed, who concentrated money and power in a few hands. Others were forced to live in poverty. Kuchma brought these principles over to independent Ukraine. To consolidate his power, he began to buy up politicians and journalists. They are now replacing their old and ‘spent’ servants with a new generation of younger politicians who seem to be associated with something progressive. They started buying them up even before they were elected. This system works in this way.
“I consider the very notion of alliance between Ukrainska Pravda, which was Leshchenko’s alma mater among other things, and the Kuchma clan to be abhorrent. Let me remind you that this web resource was founded by Gongadze. We have all heard in the Melnychenko tapes that Kuchma was the one who gave the order to ‘deal’ with the journalist. One can debate whether it was the direct murder order, but Kuchma’s involvement with this murder is a fact. Also, it is a fact that without the system built by Kuchma, this murder would have never happened. This was a consequence of his authoritarianism. Other people implicated in the Gongadze murder were Volodymyr Lytvyn, who had personal reasons to push Kuchma into such actions, and the then minister of internal affairs Yurii Kravchenko. Oleksii Pukach was just the immediate perpetrator of the crime.
“The attacks then targeted not only Gongadze, but Yeliashkevych and Podolsky as well. The latter was prevented from launching a blog on Ukrainska Pravda, which had been founded by Gongadze. By the way, they have shut down my blog as well.
“I watched Leshchenko’s interview with Vlashchenko recently, where he tried to make excuses about this matter, but really just avoided direct answers to questions. On that issue, I am even more concerned about actions of Olena Prytula (former editor-in-chief of Ukrainska Pravda). Ukrainska Pravda released a lot of materials carrying the banner that read ‘with the support of the Pinchuk Foundation,’ i.e., de facto with Kuchma’s support.
“We have now political-oligarchic conglomerates, entire families that are related through personal and business links. That is their way of survival. None of them will ever attack Kuchma, including the current president, who became an oligarch precisely under Kuchma. The same Serhii Liovochkin, who was once personal assistant to Kuchma, provided Ukrainska Pravda with exclusive information at some point. Pinchuk financed their books. For some time, the sponsors of Ukrainska Pravda included Hryhoryshyn and Akhmetov. This is a case of collusion. Leshchenko can position himself whatever way he likes it, but in substance, he is a Kuchmist, since he was nursed by ‘Kuchma’s milk.’ I mean Kuchma’s money, the information provided by Kuchma’s people. And now they will be creating a new political party that will be either supportive of Kuchma, or do anything to prevent his arrest. Leshchenko, meanwhile, is just a puppet that is an absolutely dependent figure that always goes to the government quarter in Pechersk district of Kyiv to ask for advice.
“That is why our politics is a great theatrical performance of sorts. That is why I do not trust all this ‘young generation’ of politicians who get their suits, flights, participation in various events abroad, and their media projects all paid for by specific clans, that is, they are nursed by this milk of vice. For example, I flew to the UK at the invitation of the British government. When flying to a meeting with the European Commission, it was clearly written that the Commission paid for it. It was their program, not the initiative of a private foundation. The Pinchuk Foundation has many horizontal cooperation connections with other foundations, and they invest in the promotion of their people.
“I even think that when we had the ‘Ukraine without Kuchma’ protest campaign, the true and honest opponents of Kuchma were its rank-and-file participants, not those who allegedly were at its helm. It is because we can see some of the erstwhile protest leaders in the company of Kuchma now, and they smile at each other and shake hands. I believe that the tight link between oligarchs, politicians, and journalists, including in particular former journalists who currently organize new parties, by the way – this link is very dangerous.”
“IT IS PINCHUK AND HIS WIFE WHO HAVE BEEN SELECTED TO REPRESENT THE INTERESTS OF KUCHMA AND DEAL WITH THE FAMILY’S MATTERS”
Ihor LUTSENKO, MP, Fatherland faction:
“Speaking for myself, I find any political or social cooperation with Pinchuk totally unacceptable, for the very reasons which are emphasized by Den: he is the son-in-law of the person who ruined our country and has built a semi-tyrannical regime that reproduces itself. Today it is clear that Pinchuk and his wife have been selected to represent the interests of Kuchma and deal with the family’s matters.
“Secondly, I worked for Ukrainska Pravda for a time and find any friendly contacts with Pinchuk totally unacceptable, since he still tries to whitewash his father-in-law’s involvement in the murder of the founder of Ukrainska Pravda.
“For these two reasons, no contacts with Pinchuk should take place. Of course, if something happened and he changed his views, I can imagine us cooperating, perhaps in matters of national defense. But he did nothing for it and was completely indifferent to it before. He is a typical traitor who we need to punish as soon as possible.
“Of course, Pinchuk is very active in the Ukrainian politics and economy these days. He is an active political actor, negotiates agreements with various political forces, and he can do so namely due to his media strength. The oligarch uses his media resources as a political currency, which almost everyone accepts, and thus he remains in the top league of our politics. In addition, he has major assets in the steel industry. I personally know cases of certain persons lobbying for his interests. So if someone says that Pinchuk has lost his political and economic influence, they are wrong or just dishonest.
“In general, there should be some very good reasons for talking to any oligarch. Thus, I met with Kolomoisky in April 2014 as we cooperated to defend Dnipropetrovsk region, but I have not seen him since. Similarly, I needed to settle some security and defense matters with Hryhoryshyn, because he could, in theory, bring very urgent information to the president. At one time in 2014, I also had to convey some messages to Akhmetov at a time when hostilities took place in Mariupol. I never have any small talk with oligarchs, and believe that we need to impose rather stringent economic sanctions on them.”
