The topic of the anti-corruption struggle in Ukraine has already bored to death not only Ukrainians, but also curators of the Ukrainian politum from the United States. And it’s not just because the government is not able to create anti-corruption legislation, the problem is that in the ‘independent’, the fight is not really about corruption: ‘anti-corruptionists’ are fighting other ‘anti-corruptionists’, while bribe-takers are still free.
The situation with the arrest of the SBU with the assistance of the Prosecutor General’s Office under the guise of the NABU looks more than curious. Agents undercover, cross-investigations, honest government officials – an excellent story for a fantastic spy comedy.
The subject line of this story is as follows: the first deputy chairman of the State Migration Service was offered a bribe for illegal legalization of foreigners in Ukraine. According to the director of the NABU Artem Sytnik, the offer was made by their agent under cover for the disclosure of corruption schemes in the migration service. However, according to the state official from the migration service, she refused a bribe, but she reported a proposal to the Ukrainian security service, which began its investigation. As a result, the SBU detained a detective of the NABU, and, according to the latter, illegally.
But this, of course, is not the end of the story. In response to a statement by the NABU about the illegality of the detention of their agent, the Prosecutor General of Ukraine Yury Lutsenko made a retaliatory accusation of illegality of NABU’s methods for investigating. Lutsenko added details to the espionage comedy, telling about a parallel investigation by his department.
What in the end? The NABU claims that their operation is sabotaged. “Yesterday’s investigation has negative consequences for our operation, and it is actually terminated, unfortunately. We cannot document all the figurants that we led,” the head of NABU Sytnik said.
However, this is not the end either. The history continued at the international level. So, Lutsenko refused to go to the United States for a Global Forum on asset recovery, which was attended by representatives of the NABU. Moreover, even the Deputy Prosecutor General did not reach the forum. The US response to such a demarche was immediate.
The Secretary of the US State Department stated that “the failure of an anti-corruption investigation at a high level, the arrest of agents and the withdrawal of sensitive documents of the NABU raise concerns about Ukraine’s commitment to fight corruption. These actions look like part of efforts to undermine independent anti-corruption institutions that are supported by the US and other countries.” As you can see, the curators of Ukraine in the US were not prepared for the peculiarities of the Ukrainian mentality.
From all this deliberately intricate history, one thing is clear: Ukraine is under external control. Conflicts between its departments are decided in the US, which these departments control. Although, they control them badly: the greed of Ukrainian politicians, underestimated by Americans, turned out to be stronger. Corruption schemes and ties in the highest echelons of power in Ukraine cannot be broken by any external management.
Vladimir Bidyovka, the DPR People’s Council deputy