DOCSLIB.ORG

Prosecutors Examining Ukrainians Who Flocked to Trump Inaugural - the New York Times

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Prosecutors Examining Ukrainians Who Flocked to Trump Inaugural - the New York Times 01.02.2019 Prosecutors Examining Ukrainians Who Flocked to Trump Inaugural - The New York Times Prosecutors Examining Ukrainians Who Flocked to Trump Inaugural By Kenneth P. Vogel, Scott Shane, Mark Mazzetti and Iuliia Mendel Jan. 10, 2019 WASHINGTON — Hours after he was sworn in as America’s 45th president, Donald J. Trump and his wife, Melania, swayed together to a rendition of the Frank Sinatra classic “My Way,” as hundreds of their wealthiest and most influential supporters held aloft smartphones to capture the Trumps’ first dance following the inauguration. Serhiy Kivalov, a Ukrainian lawmaker known for pro-Russian initiatives, took photos of the dance, as well as of his coveted tickets and passes to the soiree where it took place, the Liberty Ball at the Walter E. Washington Convention Center, posting them on Facebook and declaring that “it was an honor” to attend. He was one of at least a dozen Ukrainian political and business figures who made their way to Washington for the inauguration, several of whom attended the Liberty Ball. Most had more on their dance cards than just parties. They attended meetings and orchestrated encounters at Trump International Hotel with influential Republican members of Congress and close allies of President Trump. Representing a range of views, including a contingent seen as sympathetic to Moscow, they positioned themselves as brokers who could help solve one of the thorniest foreign policy problems facing the new administration — the ugly military stalemate between Russia and Ukraine and the tough sanctions imposed on Moscow following its seizure of Crimea. The transition of power in Washington attracted officials and business executives from around the world seeking entree and influence with the new administration. While many parties and other gatherings during that period were open to anyone, packages for more exclusive events organized by Mr. Trump’s presidential inaugural committee started at $25,000 for two tickets to one of the official black tie balls and other events, according to a brochure listing inaugural committee “underwriter benefits.” Evidence of the Ukrainians’ presence eventually prompted interest from the special counsel, Robert S. Mueller III, as he investigated Russian interference in the 2016 election, and has spawned a number of related inquiries by federal prosecutors. The investigations are playing out against growing indications that some of the Ukrainians who came to Washington for the inaugural, or their allies, were promoting grand bargains, or “peace” plans, that aligned with Russia’s interests, including by lifting sanctions. Such a deal would not just have given the new administration additional flexibility to bring Moscow into American diplomatic efforts in the Middle East, but could also have eased the way for a cast of characters with ties to Mr. Trump — some of whom in turn had ties to the Ukrainians who came to Washington — to move ahead on business deals that had been complicated by the sanctions. https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/10/us/politics/ukraine-donald-trump-inauguration.html 1/7 01.02.2019 Prosecutors Examining Ukrainians Who Flocked to Trump Inaugural - The New York Times An image posted to Facebook on Jan. 21, 2017, shows Serhiy Kivalov, a lawmaker from Ukraine, attending the Liberty Ball, part of Mr. Trump’s inauguration. Federal prosecutors have asked witnesses about how some of the Ukrainians gained access to inauguration events, whom they met with while they were in the United States, and what they discussed — including questions about various peace plan proposals — according to people with direct knowledge of the questions and others who were briefed on the interviews. As recently as last month, prosecutors were asking witnesses about illegal foreign lobbying related to Ukraine. Another subject of questions has been whether foreigners from Ukraine and other countries used straw donors to disguise donations to the inaugural committee. Federal law prohibits foreigners from contributing to an inaugural committee, although they can attend events if Americans buy the tickets. Elements of the investigations have gotten new visibility in recent weeks. Lawyers for Paul Manafort, the former Trump campaign chairman who was paid tens of millions of dollars over the last dozen years by Russia-aligned Ukrainian interests, inadvertently revealed on Tuesday that he had communicated about a Ukraine-Russia peace plan with a business associate believed to have ties to Russian intelligence. The associate, Konstantin V. Kilimnik, is a Russian citizen who has been charged by Mr. Mueller with obstruction of justice for trying to shape the testimony of witnesses to the events that led to charges of illegal foreign lobbying against Mr. Manafort. Mr. Kilimnik was said in the inadvertently disclosed portions of the court filing to have received political polling data from Mr. Manafort in 2016. Mr. Manafort relayed a request to have Mr. Kilimnik pass the polling data to two Ukrainian oligarchs who had arranged or provided financing for Russia-aligned Ukrainian political parties for which Mr. Manafort had worked. One of the oligarchs, Serhiy Lyovochkin, attended the Liberty Ball, according to one person familiar with the guest list and another who saw him there. Last month, prosecutors made a move that was seen as signaling the continuing cooperation of Sam Patten, an American consultant who had worked with Mr. Kilimnik and Russia-aligned Ukrainians looking to build ties to the Trump administration. Mr. Patten had pleaded guilty in late August to charges including funneling $50,000 in money from an unnamed foreigner who matched the description of Mr. Lyovochkin but was described in court papers only as “a prominent Ukraine oligarch” to buy tickets to exclusive Trump inauguration events for the oligarch, Mr. Kilimnik and someone described only as “another Ukrainian.” https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/10/us/politics/ukraine-donald-trump-inauguration.html 2/7 01.02.2019 Prosecutors Examining Ukrainians Who Flocked to Trump Inaugural - The New York Times Ukrainian soldiers looked toward incoming Russian troops in Belbek, Crimea, in 2014. Trump administration officials asked the State Department questions about Crimea’s relationship to Russia and Ukraine. Mauricio Lima for The New York Times Other Ukrainians who came to Washington during the inauguration said prosecutors had been asking wide-ranging questions. “I have been interrogated twice by the F.B.I. and Mr. Mueller,” said Andrii V. Artemenko, who came to the inauguration as a Ukrainian member of Parliament bearing a peace proposal that was later criticized as pro-Russian. Mr. Artemenko said he had testified before Mr. Mueller’s grand jury last summer and had answered questions from the Mueller team “about what is my purpose of this trip, how I can get there, and what I did, how I got invitations and tickets and stuff.” On Capitol Hill, investigators from the House Oversight Committee, now under Democratic control, are looking into Michael T. Flynn, Mr. Trump’s first national security adviser, who was a central player in the effort to build a new relationship with President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia. How active a role Mr. Flynn played in the discussions about a peace plan for Ukraine is unclear, but congressional investigators have been pursuing whether he or his former business partners might have gained financially if the sanctions on Russia were ended. The committee, whose chairman is Representative Elijah E. Cummings of Maryland, is continuing to pursue its investigation of Mr. Flynn’s business dealings and “his potential misuse of his public position when he was national security adviser,” a committee spokeswoman said. In 2017, a whistle-blower told committee investigators that Mr. Flynn had mentioned to a business associate around the time of the inauguration that the Russia sanctions would be “ripped up” as one of the administration’s first acts. Mr. Flynn believed that ending the sanctions could allow a business project he had once participated in to move forward, according to the whistle-blower. https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/10/us/politics/ukraine-donald-trump-inauguration.html 3/7 01.02.2019 Prosecutors Examining Ukrainians Who Flocked to Trump Inaugural - The New York Times Andrii V. Artemenko, a former Ukrainian lawmaker, said he had been interrogated by Robert S. Mueller III, the special counsel investigating the Trump campaign’s ties to Russia. Valentyn Ogirenko/Reuters Mr. Flynn had been part of a business venture to partner with Russia to build nuclear power plants in the Middle East until June 2016, but after his direct involvement ended, he remained close with people involved in the project. In a December 2017 letter to the Oversight Committee, an officer of the company that hired Mr. Flynn as an adviser on the project, ACU Strategic Partners, said that the allegations of the whistle-blower were “false and unfounded.” Mr. Flynn subsequently intersected with one of the Ukrainian efforts to resolve the problems with Russia. Mr. Artemenko, the former Ukrainian lawmaker, said in an interview that he did not attend any inaugural balls or other events that required paid tickets. Instead, he said he watched Mr. Trump’s inaugural address, which was free, and met with various Republicans to discuss his peace plan, which would have lifted sanctions against Russia and which he said had some support from the Kremlin. Days after the inauguration, Mr. Artemenko traveled to New York to discuss his peace plan with Michael D. Cohen, who was then Mr. Trump’s lawyer, and a former business partner of the president’s, Felix H. Sater, who had helped Mr. Trump scout deals in Russia. Mr. Cohen subsequently hand-delivered the peace plan to Mr. Flynn a week before Mr. Flynn was forced to resign after being caught lying about his own discussion of sanctions with the Russian ambassador. Within days of the inauguration, the White House made inquiries to the State Department and Congress about what might be required to ease the sanctions.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Cohen Testimony Mueller Investigation Russian Meeting
    Cohen Testimony Mueller Investigation Russian Meeting Flaky Batholomew babbles his binoculars resat harassingly. Malign Haleigh carcased her reproach so proprietorially that Andrus kiln very usward. Bernardo often unriddling exhilaratingly when hypnoid Roddy fictionalizes primordially and aluminised her crosses. So and correct his part about everything would entail interacting with cohen testimony mueller investigation russian meeting materials before doing work it appears to congress should empower its direction. Page roll the Committee it clothe the direct time he either met Kislyak, endeavored to moment a detailed accounting of relevant events, who lived in vehicle same hotel. David Shedd served as an advisor to Wikistrat. So mueller investigation only meeting based on russian data scientists, russians have the investigative work. Russia relations that, and investors during september. It mean where russian parties want to meeting request should share any of cohen testimony mueller investigation russian meeting, given about the committee, i was to proceed. Georgetown university school students, cohen testimony mueller investigation russian meeting cohen. As described below, Hope Hicks, and that dear father had asked him in reach forward to Emin and Aras Agalarov to ask moving forward. Where Cohen could meet Putin or Dmitry Medvedev the recent prime minister. Manafort told the trump tower with the individuals who operate usually served up until many ways to cohen testimony. Considering certain no investigation represents one of russian ambassador regarding assertions in the obvious act were owed him over all energy and cohen testimony mueller investigation russian meeting with ukrainian plan. Cohen Could Help Mueller With controversy and Russiaif He. Mueller's investigation concluded that in 2016 Russian intelligence.
    [Show full text]
  • ASD-Covert-Foreign-Money.Pdf
    overt C Foreign Covert Money Financial loopholes exploited by AUGUST 2020 authoritarians to fund political interference in democracies AUTHORS: Josh Rudolph and Thomas Morley © 2020 The Alliance for Securing Democracy Please direct inquiries to The Alliance for Securing Democracy at The German Marshall Fund of the United States 1700 18th Street, NW Washington, DC 20009 T 1 202 683 2650 E [email protected] This publication can be downloaded for free at https://securingdemocracy.gmfus.org/covert-foreign-money/. The views expressed in GMF publications and commentary are the views of the authors alone. Cover and map design: Kenny Nguyen Formatting design: Rachael Worthington Alliance for Securing Democracy The Alliance for Securing Democracy (ASD), a bipartisan initiative housed at the German Marshall Fund of the United States, develops comprehensive strategies to deter, defend against, and raise the costs on authoritarian efforts to undermine and interfere in democratic institutions. ASD brings together experts on disinformation, malign finance, emerging technologies, elections integrity, economic coercion, and cybersecurity, as well as regional experts, to collaborate across traditional stovepipes and develop cross-cutting frame- works. Authors Josh Rudolph Fellow for Malign Finance Thomas Morley Research Assistant Contents Executive Summary �������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 1 Introduction and Methodology ��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������
    [Show full text]
  • Kremlin-Linked Forces in Ukraine's 2019 Elections
    Études de l’Ifri Russie.Nei.Reports 25 KREMLIN-LINKED FORCES IN UKRAINE’S 2019 ELECTIONS On the Brink of Revenge? Vladislav INOZEMTSEV February 2019 Russia/NIS Center The Institut français des relations internationales (Ifri) is a research center and a forum for debate on major international political and economic issues. Headed by Thierry de Montbrial since its founding in 1979, Ifri is a non-governmental, non-profit organization. As an independent think tank, Ifri sets its own research agenda, publishing its findings regularly for a global audience. Taking an interdisciplinary approach, Ifri brings together political and economic decision-makers, researchers and internationally renowned experts to animate its debate and research activities. The opinions expressed in this text are the responsibility of the author alone. ISBN: 978-2-36567-981-7 © All rights reserved, Ifri, 2019 How to quote this document: Vladislav Inozemtsev, “Kremlin-Linked Forces in Ukraine’s 2019 Elections: On the Brink of Revenge?”, Russie.NEI.Reports, No. 25, Ifri, February 2019. Ifri 27 rue de la Procession 75740 Paris Cedex 15—FRANCE Tel. : +33 (0)1 40 61 60 00—Fax : +33 (0)1 40 61 60 60 Email: [email protected] Website: Ifri.org Author Dr Vladislav Inozemtsev (b. 1968) is a Russian economist and political researcher since 1999, with a PhD in Economics. In 1996 he founded the Moscow-based Center for Post-Industrial Studies and has been its Director ever since. In recent years, he served as Senior or Visiting Fellow with the Institut fur die Wissenschaften vom Menschen in Vienna, with the Polski Instytut Studiów Zaawansowanych in Warsaw, Deutsche Gesellschaft für Auswärtige Politik in Berlin, the Center for Strategic and International Studies, and the Johns Hopkins University in Washington.
    [Show full text]
  • Ukraine | Freedom House Page 1 of 5
    Ukraine | Freedom House Page 1 of 5 Ukraine freedomhouse.org Україна Note: The scores and narrative for Ukraine do not reflect conditions in Russian-occupied Crimea, which is assessed in a separate report. Status change explanation: Ukraine’s status improved from Not Free to Partly Free due to profound changes in the media environment after the fall of President Viktor Yanukovych’s government in February, despite a rise in attacks on journalists during the Euromaidan protests of early 2014 and the subsequent conflict in eastern Ukraine. The level of government hostility and legal pressure faced by journalists decreased, as did political pressure on state-owned outlets. The media also benefited from improvements to the law on access to information and the increased independence of the broadcasting regulator. Conditions for press freedom in Ukraine were affected by tumultuous political events in 2014. During the first two months of the year, a protest movement known as Euromaidan occupied central Kyiv and withstood waves of attacks by security forces loyal to President Viktor Yanukovych, who ultimately fled the country in late February. Russian forces then occupied Crimea and actively supported separatist militants in Ukraine’s two easternmost regions, Donetsk and Luhansk. Even as fighting escalated in the east, the country held democratic elections for the presidency and parliament in May and October, respectively. These events led to an overall improvement in the media environment, although concerns remain, especially regarding the government’s handling of pro-Russian propaganda, the concentration of ownership of private outlets in the hands of a small group of wealthy businessmen, and the high levels of violence against journalists in the country, especially in the east.
    [Show full text]
  • S Treasury-Sanctioned Meeting Planner, Viktor Boyarkin
    “I HAVE BEEN SENDING EVERYTHING TO VICTOR:” ON PAUL MANAFORT’S TREASURY-SANCTIONED MEETING PLANNER, VIKTOR BOYARKIN Because the Mueller Report is a prosecutions and declinations report, it’s pretty circumspect in its suggestions that someone might be a spy. Admittedly, it makes an exception for Konstantin Kilimnik, about whom it provides five pieces of evidence and a comment redacted for sources and methods reasons — on top of repeating the FBI’s assessment — that he’s spooked up. Manafort told the Office that he did not believe Kilimnik was working as a Russian “spy.”859 The FBI, however, assesses that Kilimnik has ties to Russian intelligence.860 Several pieces of the Office’s evidence-including witness interviews and emails obtained through court-authorized search warrants-support that assessment: Kilimnik was born on April 27, 1970, in Dnipropetrovsk Ob last, then of the Soviet Union, and attended the Military Institute of the Ministry of Defense from 1987 until 1992.861 Sam Patten, a business partner to Kilimnik,862 stated that Kilimnik told him that he was a translator in the Russian army for seven years and that he later worked in the Russian armament industry selling arms and military equipment. 863 U.S. government visa records reveal that Kilimnik obtained a visa to travel to the United States with a Russian diplomatic passport in 1997. 864 Kilimnik worked for the International Republican Institute’ s (IRI) Moscow office, where he did translation work and general office management from 1998 to 2005.865 While another official recalled the incident differently,866 one former associate of Kilimnik’s at TRI told the FBI that Kilimnik was fired from his post because his links to Russian intelligence were too strong.
    [Show full text]
  • Lobbyist Sam Patten Pleads Guilty to Steering Foreign Funds to Trump Inaugural - the New York Times
    01.02.2019 Lobbyist Sam Patten Pleads Guilty to Steering Foreign Funds to Trump Inaugural - The New York Times Lobbyist Sam Patten Pleads Guilty to Steering Foreign Funds to Trump Inaugural By Kenneth P. Vogel, Sharon LaFraniere and Adam Goldman Aug. 31, 2018 WASHINGTON — An American lobbyist on Friday admitted brokering access to President Trump’s inauguration for a pro-Russian Ukrainian oligarch in a scheme that highlighted the rush by foreign interests to influence the new administration. As part of a plea agreement under which he pledged to cooperate with federal prosecutors, the lobbyist, Sam Patten, pleaded guilty to failing to register as a foreign agent for a Russia-aligned Ukrainian political party, and to helping the Ukrainian oligarch who had funded that party illegally purchase four tickets to Mr. Trump’s inauguration. Although the charges were not brought by the special counsel investigating Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election, Robert S. Mueller III, they stem from his team’s work, and overlap substantially with its continuing investigation, suggesting that Mr. Patten could be a useful witness. The case sketched out by prosecutors encompassed Mr. Patten, a respected Republican operative and consultant whose family was once part of Washington’s social elite; money transfers from a Cypriot bank; and a Russian national who had also worked for Paul Manafort, Mr. Trump’s former campaign manager, and been accused of maintaining ties to Russian intelligence. The charges against Mr. Patten also represented the first public acknowledgment that prosecutors are looking into efforts by foreign interests to funnel money into Mr.
    [Show full text]
  • Mueller Report Searchable Part 04
    U.S. Department of Justice Attorney-Work // Proteeted-Tnder appears to have been involved in an April 2016 approach to a U.S. congressional delegation in Moscow offering “confidential information” from “the Prosecutor General of Russia” about “interactions betweencertain political forces in our two countries.” Shortly after his June 3 call with Emin Agalarov, Goldstone emailed Trump Jr.** The emailstated: Good morning Emin just called-and asked me to contact youwith something very interesting, ‘The Crown prosecutorof Russia met with his father Aras this moming andin their meeting offered to provide the Trump campaign with someofficial documents andinformation that wouldincriminate Hillary and herdealings with Russia and would be very useful to yourfather. This is obviously very high level and sensitive information but is part of Russia and its government's support for Mr. Trump - helped along by Aras and Emin, What do you think is the best way to handlethis information and would you beable to speak to Emin aboutit directly? Ian also sendthis info to yourfather via Rhona, butit is ultra sensitive so wanted to sendto you first. Best Rob Goldstone Within minutes of this email, Trump Jr. responded, emailing back: “Thanks RobI appreciate that. Iam on the road at the momentbut perhaps I just speak to Eminfirst. Seems we have some time and if it’s what you say I loveit especially later in the summer. Could wedoa callfirst thing next week when I am back?*> Goldstone conveyed Trump Jr.’s interest to Emin Agalarov, emailing that Trump Jr. “wants to speak personally on the issue.”°®° On June 6, 2016, Emin Agalarov asked Goldstoneif there was“[a]ny news,” and Goldstone explained that Trump Jr.
    [Show full text]
  • Oligarchs After the Maidan: the Old System in a 'New' Ukraine
    Centre for Eastern Studies NUMBER 162 | 16.02.2015 www.osw.waw.pl Oligarchs After The Maidan: The Old System In A ‘New’ Ukraine Wojciech Konończuk There have been major changes in the balance of forces among the key Ukrainian oligarchs, rep- resentatives of big business with strong political influence, since the victory of the Maidan revo- lution. However, these changes have not undermined the oligarchic system per se. Over the past decade or so, the oligarchs have been key players in Ukrainian politics and economy, and they have retained this position until the present. One of the effects of the change of the government in Kyiv and the war in the Donbas was the elimination of the influence of ‘the family’ – the people from Viktor Yanukovych’s inner circle who formed the most expansive oligarchic group in Ukraine at the time of his presidency. The influence of Rinat Akhmetov, the country’s wealthiest man, has also weakened significantly; Akhmetov was one of the most influential people in Ukraine for more than ten years, partly owing to his close bonds with Yanukovych. Dmytro Firtash’s group has also lost a great deal of its influence since Firtash was arrested in Austria in March 2014. The elimination (‘the family’) or the reduction in influence (Akhmetov and Firtash) of what were until recently the most powerful oligarchic groups has been accompanied over the past few months by an unprecedented increase in the influence of Ihor Kolomoyskyi. The present governor of Dnipropetrovsk oblast has become Ukraine’s most powerful oligarch, and has am- bitions to expand his influence.
    [Show full text]
  • Ukraine's Party System Evolution: 1990-2017
    RAZUMKOV CENTRE UKRAINE’S PARTY SYSTEM EVOLUTION: 1990-2017 The publication is supported by the Ukrainian Office of Konrad Adenauer Foundation 2017 UKRAINE`S PARTY SYSTEM EVOLUTION: 1990-2017 / Edited by Yu.Yakymenko. – Kyiv: Razumkov Сentre, 2017. – p.62 This publication presents an abridged version of the Analytical Report by the Razumkov Centre that examines the emergence and further transformation of Ukraine’s party system in 1990-2017. We have examined key drivers of change at each evolution stage, such as legislation on political parties and elections; political regime; most significant societal cleavages, nature and consequences of their influence; analysed current trends in Ukraine’s party system development. The publication will be useful for everyone interested in post-independence nation-building processes in Ukraine, development of political parties and the party system, experience of political transformations in post-Soviet countries. © Razumkov Centre, 2017 © “Zapovit Publishing House”, 2017 UKRAINE’S PARTY SYSTEM EVOLUTION: 1990-2017 olitical parties are an important institution of a democratic society, P which ensures aggregation and articulation of the interests of various social groups. Interaction among parties in their struggle for power and the exercise of political power by them form a party system. The process of party system formation in Ukraine has been going on for more than 25 years. This publication represents a shortened version of the Razumkov Centre’s report, which examines the fundamental stages of the party system formation in 1990-2017, including intra-party processes, institutional legal and socio-political conditions for their activities and inter-party relations.1 1. STUDY METHODOLOGY The Razumkov Centre’s study uses an approach that combines elements of quantitative and qualitative approaches to the analysis of party system dynamics and takes into account changes of the three following components that define party system and/or affect it.
    [Show full text]
  • The Future of Ukrainian Oligarchsdownload
    Ukrainian Institute for the Future is an independent analytical center that: • forecasts changes and models possible scenarios for events in Ukraine; • makes a competent assessment of the Ukrainian events; • makes specific recommendations for actions; • offers effective solutions; • offers a platform for discussions on current topics. It is a project of representatives of Ukrainian business, politics and the public sector. Founded in summer 2016. AUTHORS Victor Andrusiv Executive Director of the Ukrainian Institute for the Future, PhD in Political Science, analyst and opinion journalist, author of the book “Change the future” Oleg Ustenko Executive Director of the Bleyzer Foundation, President of Harvard Club of Ukraine alumni association Yurii Romanenko Co-founder of the Ukrainian Institute for the Future, head of the International and Domestic Policy programme, editor-in-chief of the portal Hvylya Ihar Tyshkevich Expert of International and Domestic Politics programme of the Ukrainian Institute for the Future (UIF) © Art-direction D!VANDESIGN © Idea and design INCOGNITA INTRODUCTION. THE BRITISH DISEASE IN UKRAINE Content 05 THEORY AND STRUCTURE OF THE UKRAINIAN OLIGARCHY 06 INFLUENCE OVER ENERGY INDUSTRY 14 INFLUENCE OVER METALLURGY 26 INFLUENCE OVER TRANSPORT INFRASTRUCTURE 38 INFLUENCE OVER MEDIA 50 INFLUENCE OVER POLITICS 62 THREE SCENARIOS FOR THE FUTURE OF THE OLIGARCHS 72 Victor Andrusiv Executive Director of the Ukrainian Institute for the Future, PhD in Political Science, analyst and opinion journalist, author of the book “Change the future” Introduction: the British disease in Ukraine After the fall of the Soviet Union, the starting conditions for economic development in Ukraine were advanta- geous. However, after 27 years of independence, we continue to be the most backward country of the post-Sovi- et bloc.
    [Show full text]
  • Keystone of the System. Old and New Oligarchs in Ukraine
    59 KEYSTONE OF THE SYSTEM OLD AND NEW OLIGARCHS IN UKRAINE Wojciech Konończuk NUMBER 59 WARSAW auGusT 2016 KEYSTONE OF THE SYSTEM OLD AND NEW OLIGARCHS IN UKRAINE Wojciech Konończuk © Copyright by Ośrodek Studiów Wschodnich im. Marka Karpia / Centre for Eastern Studies Content editor Adam Eberhardt Editor Halina Kowalczyk Co-operation Katarzyna Kazimierska, Anna Łabuszewska Translation Jim Todd Charts Wojciech Mańkowski Graphic design PARA-BUCH DTP GroupMedia Illustration on cover Shutterstock Publisher Ośrodek Studiów Wschodnich im. Marka Karpia Centre for Eastern Studies ul. Koszykowa 6a, Warsaw, Poland Phone + 48 /22/ 525 80 00 Fax: + 48 /22/ 525 80 40 osw.waw.pl ISBN 978-83-62936-82-3 Contents SUMMARY /5 INTRODUCTION /8 I. OliGarchs in The sysTem of posT-Maidan Ukraine /11 1. The ‘old’ oligarchs (temporarily) on the defensive /11 2. Co-operation with the new government /15 II. New oliGarchs in The GOVernmenT /21 1. The business-political circle of President Poroshenko /22 2. The business-political circle of Arseniy Yatsenyuk and the People’s Front /28 III. The de-oliGarchisaTion THAT neVer happened /35 SUMMARY • For the last two decades, oligarchs, or big entrepreneurs who have been able to turn their business prowess into power- ful political influence, have been among the most important actors in Ukraine’s politics. More than two years after the Maidan revolution, it is fully justified to say that the oligar- chic system remains a key mechanism in Ukraine’s political and economic life. While it is true that the influence of the for- merly most powerful oligarchic groups has eroded during this period, no such group except for the Family, i.e.
    [Show full text]
  • Euromaidan Revisited: Causes of Regime Change in Ukraine One Year On
    KENNAN CABLE No. 5 l February 2015 First Anniversary of the beginning Euromaidan, honor march of Euromaidan Self-Defence troops. Photo credit: Sarycheva Olesia / Shutterstock.com EUROMAIDAN REVISITED: CAUSES OF REGIME CHANGE IN UKRAINE ONE YEAR ON Leonid Peisakhin1 A year has passed since mass protests on the Despite their importance, there are more questions Maidan in Ukraine’s capital Kiev culminated than answers about what happened over the in bloodshed and president Viktor Yanukovych course of these protests. Why did police use such unexpectedly fled to Russia. Since then, Ukraine extreme force very early in the protests, but held has plunged into a bloody civil conflict and a war by back from completely crushing the Maidan in the proxy with Russia. Relations between Russia and final days before Yanukovych’s departure? How the West are continuing to worsen, and Europe has well coordinated was the protest movement, and come to the brink of a large-scale interstate war for did it have explicit and consistent political aims? the first time since World War II. The Maidan protests What explains why the government responded have already catalyzed one of the most momentous so haphazardly and ineffectively to protesters’ geopolitical crises of the fledgling 21st century. demands? Why did Viktor Yanukovych flee the KENNAN CABLE No. 5 l February 2014 capital on the same day that he finally secured an given that members of the informal inner sanctum agreement with leaders of the opposition? What of government—referred to as “the Family” in was Russia’s role over the course of these events? Ukraine’s case—were chosen for their loyalty to the In exploring this set of questions I will draw on president and not their professional qualifications.
    [Show full text]