US Election results: debunking Ukrainian myths

On the 8th November in the United States, democracy prevailed over administrative pressure and populism. Bringing Donald Trump to the well deserved Presidential seat. Historic event which can teach Ukrainians a lot.

It is a well-known fact that all this time US Embassy and certain representatives of State Department were interfering into Ukrainian internal political matters, promoting their "agents" to the key positions, and insisting on speedy and unprepared reforms just to strengthen their power. Simultaneously making Ukrainian state agencies to become involved in their own political agenda.

We silently watched how former President Kuchma's son in Law Pinchuk, who made his fortune on questionable privatization, became one of the main foreign sponsors of Clinton's election campaign. While funded by him non-governmental organizations, lead by another prominent figure of previous corrupt regime, Mr Lyovochkin, in perfect agreement with US Embassy, were promoting initiatives destroying our system.

We and our media turned a blind eye to the fact that many "young reformers" and "Euro-optimists" in our Parliament were sponsored by US with grants or salaries paid to their spouses by US companies, such as Cargill. We disregarded the fact that our Government was put under control of the US Embassy through various grant programs and through assistants whose salaries were paid by Soros Foundation. As well as that US Embassy in fact created "watchdogs" out of newly formed Ukrainian anti-corruption bodies, which were carrying out their activity under its guidance while openly admitting it to press. And insisted on widening their authority by permission to tap top-ranking state officials with the help of American specialists. All not likely in order to disclose their illegal acts and to bring them to justice under Ukrainian law. But more likely to get them under control.

No wonder, that as a result, we as a State and our state bodies became involved in US political election campaign on the side of one particular candidate.

I previously wrote that it was inadmissible for the Head of Ukrainian anti-corruption Bureau, Artyom Sytnik, to start criminal investigation against Donald Trump's right-hand man Paul Manafort merely on the basis of statement, submitted by Mrs Nulland's protegee, journalist turned MP Sergey Leschenko, and thus to become involved in the persecution of Mr Trump's associate. All for the purpose of Mr Leschneko creating hot news out of it which were immediately picked up by the world media and used against Donald Trump and his campaign.

Especially taking into account that there was clearly no information suggesting that Mr Manafort was involved in any illegal activity as he was assisting dismissed President of Ukraine Viktor Yanukovich as a political consultant and never hid that. Unlike brother of Mr Podesta, Mrs Clinton's associate, whose Fund apparently did not declare funds received from former Ukrainian President.

It just showed our lack of political culture and lack of elementary Plan B: in case Clinton does not win. Now we have to urgently develop it.

As no one saw intrigues of Anti-corruption Bureau, Mr Leschenko and his associate Mr Nayem, also journalist turned MP, as their own. Their conspiracy with certain US officials and Mr Pinchuk against Mr Trump was clearly seen by everyone in the world as official position of Ukrainian Government. Despite the fact that none of the authorized officials issued any relevant statements.

So what are the myths which Ukrainian media, Messrs Pinchuk, Lyovocnkin, Leschenko, Nayem, and so called "grant eaters" were spreading during their US election campaign in Ukraine?

MYTH 1: Mrs Clinton would help Ukraine to deal with Russia.

In fact, Mrs Clinton was the author of the so-called "reset" in relations with Russia in 2009, when the United States needed help in imposing sanctions against Iran. Then Mrs Clinton and US International department "closed eyes" on Russian invasion to Georgia and loss of its Abkhaz territories, in exchange for Russian support of US policy in Iran.

Not long ago, Mrs Clinton spoke again about the possibility of another reset. Taking into account US attention to conflict in Syria, with the Eastern region and its oil potential being a priority for the Democrats, it was likely that Ukrainian interests could have been traded in the same manner as Georgian seven years ago, making our country a bargaining chip in Mrs Clinton's political game.

Not to mention that providing us with lethal weapons instead of helping to develop our own military industry (and assisting in bringing UN peacekeeping forces to Ukraine), could have lead to full-scale war with Russia and massive human losses.

MYTH 2: Mrs Clinton is pro-Ukraine, while Donald Trump is pro - Russia.

None of these statements should be taken seriously.

All this time Ukrainian state bodies were under control of representatives of the US State Department, majority of whom were appointed by Mrs Clinton. As already mentioned, these people worked with us on the principle of creating and expanding network of agents.

It should not be considered a myth or a relic of the Cold War. In fact, ever since the US approach did not change much. Not just once or twice I have heard how our former citizens in the United States has received offers to return to work in Ukraine in the US commercial entities with the requirement to perform additional tasks.

Needless to remind that all recent meetings on strategic economic issues in the Cabinet were held with participation of the US ambassador, including the one on the issue of privatization of long-suffering Odessa refinery, whose debts to Firtash are now controlled by the United States. American investors also showed interest in other lucrative assets belonging to Dmytro Firtash and Yuriy Ivanyushchenko (both under criminal charges and sanctions). And they were always preceded by NABU (National anti-corruption Bureau) with their criminal investigations. Which was putting pressure on the distressed asset owners apparently in the interests of such American investors.

Why are we interesting for the United States? For various reasons. We are - among the three world leaders in the export of agricultural products, and the US agricultural lobby (Cargill and others) is arguably the most powerful after the oil lobby. We have the moratorium on sale of agricultural lands, while the state is still holding lots of them in its ownership, thus making our market unstable yet commercially attractive. We are among the 10 countries in the world with a full cycle of aircraft production. We have strategic geopolitical position, being the border between EU and Russia. And so on.

Did United States help us at all during this time? Yes. Certainly. Especially in international matters and in the conflict with Russia. US sanctions, as opposed to the EU sanctions, have resisted the challenge by the sanctioned individuals and remained unchanged, while European were partly annulled either by EU itself or through the European court. But at the same time United States officials were quite openly pursuing their own interests.

From my own experience I can say that the US Embassy and law enforcement officials intervened and prevented the return of so-called "Yanukovych billions" (stolen billion worth assets and laundered funds) by blocking both law enforcement and legislative initiatives, including special confiscation.

Preferring to receive our information and investigate it all alone, trying to qualify crime of money laundering as a violation of American laws. For obvious reasons of getting assets confiscated or, perhaps, sold to the right people.

While doing that American Embassy became also involved in protection of Ukrainian corrupt state officials and their assets. For example, Mrs Mary Batler, representative of US Ministry of Justice, at the request of former Deputy General prosecutor Vitaliy Kasko, whose law firm was, according to German investigation, assisting in money laundering to well known criminal Sergey Kurchenko, sanctioned by the US, send him (Mr Kasko) a letter criticizing draft law on special confiscation developed by the group of specialists, including me. This draft law was copying European legislation and its adoption would have allowed to seize assets of dismissed president Yanukovich and his allies in Ukraine and abroad. Mrs Batler's letter, drafted in extremely non-diplomatic manner, from which it was obvious, that she had never read the law draft itself, was then published in Ukrainian media resources and used to undermine this important initiative. Among those criticising it were familiar names of Mr Leschenko, Nayem and NGOs financed by the US.

The same happened to the Ministry of Internal Affairs Asset recovery Department, which was attacked by NGOs, trusted and sponsored by US Embassy, which were also financed by former Ukrianian officials, fearing that their assets would be confiscated. As a result, as "rumour has it", under their persuasion, US Embassador insisted on dissolution of this Department and dismissal of its Head (me).

The story of Mr Payet's son being a Director of gas extraction company of former Minister of ecology Zlochevsky is also well known.

Another outrageous incident happened when Mr Baiden told President Poroshenko in no uncertain terms to dismiss the General Prosecutor Mr Shokin in exchange of 1 billion US Dollars financial aid. As US Embassy wanted to appoint their protege Mr Kasko to his position. Later trying to move him to the position of Anti corruption Prosecutor with Ministry of Justice representative Mrs Batler openly encouraging Elective Committee to vote for him.

And all those US officials were appointed by Mrs Clinton or her aides.

So how Mr Trump could be worse for Ukraine after that?

As for his attitude to Russia, first of all he will be bound by the Parliament, where Republicans took a majority. And this party is the most conservative in its position to the Russian Federation.

And at the same time so far on the world's political map there was no leader who could match Vladimir Putin in charisma, strength and ego to confront him. So it will be interesting to see what will happened between them now.

Especially since it is not in the interests of United States to be undermined by Russia on the political arena. Thus proving once again that USA in a very important strategic partner for Ukraine in fight against Russian invasion.

Therefore, the US geopolitics may change in relation to the Russian Federation for the better for us.

At the same time Putin, after a fairly open support of Donald Trump in this election turns out to be in a position where it would be difficult for him not to make certain concessions to the United States.

MYTH 3: Trump is a non-intelligent populist.

This myth was created by Mrs Clinton's political election campaign. Which was often quite aggressive and even dirty.

Mr Trump is, essentially, a businessman who went through bankruptcy and rose again. Quality that is appreciated by everyone who has been in business, and which speaks of his potential.

Moreover, in all the debates, he was more prepared and competent comparing to Mrs Clinton.

Answers of Mrs Clinton, on the other side, had uncanny resemblance to "working notes' of Ukrainian reformers supported by Mrs Clinton's officials:

"What do you think should be done with the police?" "We need to reform it" (Painful frase for Ukrainian ear as most of reforms were useless and expensive).

"What will you do to attract money into the country?" "Raise taxes".

"What can you say about the economy?" "You know, I have two grandchildren and I certainly think about their future."

On this background, Mr Trump, speaking frankly about the outflow of capital due to cheaper labor in Mexico and China, and the absence of the United States rules that impose taxes on import of products produced by the US companies abroad, looked much better. He was also saying that in order to attract money into the country, you need to lower taxes, not raise them. And let the business develop in its own country rather than abroad. Which is very much true.

And in military issues, the Obama - Clinton Administration proved to be quite toothless. With advanced announcements about what areas would US Air forces bomb in Syria, thus alerting the terrorists while civilians remained in those areas.

As for the support of Ukraine apart from sanctions against its and Russian officials, which were not quite effective, it mainly consisted of numerous "warnings' to Russia and expressing the "deep concern".

So, it is not surprising that US citizens have made this particular choice during their 45th election. Especially considering the fact that the poor and traditionally less educated population voted for Clinton. Leaving Trump the "thinking part" of society.

What will happen now with Ukraine, after Trump coming to power?

It will not be worse, that's for sure. And perhaps the situation now will be better. Given the fact that Trump has already announced his refusal to further drain the budget by financing populist projects, we could finally get rid of the funded through the US programs "grant eaters" and their harmful influence on Ukraine. As our legal system was virtually destroyed by their unprofessional initiatives. As well as our system of justice. As it is not clear by what criterion, but the US embassy believed that reforming the police and judiciary can be done by young people with journalistic past and an average knowledge of English. Without professional education and work experience. Or by Georgian former officials, wanted in their country for various crime, who had no idea of our laws and system.

US Embassy protegees, apparently, were selected not on the basis of professionalism, but on the principle of "allegiance" which was in fact no more than allegiance to the US financing. As a result, they, with full support of the US Embassy backing their initiatives, started defending in Ukraine interests of Kurchenko, Firtash, Zlochevskiy and other corrupt officials. And although it was obvious, it did not prevent US Embassy representatives from open support and protection from criminal investigations such notorious aides of previous corrupt regime as former Deputy General Prosecutor Vitaliy Kasko, who became involved in series of criminal scandals including fraudulent privatization of the state property.

Therefore, after Mr Trump election, we can finally get a chance to concentrate on our problems. And perhaps get rid of unprofessional populists, or so - called "grant eaters", whose detrimental for our State initiatives, were all this time backed by the US Embassy. Although those initiatives were promoted solely for the reason of getting another multi million grant.

It is time for us to move away from populism and return to the defending of our own country's interests.

Similarly to what United States citizens did in this historic Presidential election.