“Burismagate” has managed to shake the grounds of US politics to its very core, with Democrats and Republicans alike scrambling left and right to either hide or uncover information relevant to the case. In the US, the situation has prompted an impeachment procedure against President Donald Trump. Though Ukraine seems rather unfazed by the entire scandal, the consequences have certainly affected its international image and narrowed its manoeuvring options within the US-EU-RF triangle. Whatever the outcome within the US’ national politics, this will certainly affect the Ukraine-USA discourse for the years to come, though it seems highly unlikely that it will drastically change the US’ involvement in helping Ukraine resolve its conflict with the Russian Federation. Ukraine’s only option to minimize the damage on an international level is to keep its head low and avoid any further political involvement. It’s a key lesson for Ukraine to – from now on – rely primarily on its own capacities in international politics, rather than desperately attempting to bed the Americans.
Houston, what’s the problem?
The story started in 2014, when Hunter Biden – son of the then Vice President of the USA, Joseph Biden – became a member of the board of directors of the Ukrainian gas company Burisma Holding, which was founded in 2002 by businessman Mykola Zlochevsky. The latter used to be the Minister of Ecology and Natural Resources in the Azarov government from 2011 until 2013, under Yanukovych’s presidency. The company mainly works in spheres of exploration, production and sale of natural gas on the Ukrainian market. They produce around a billion cubic metres of gas per year. Though exact data on profit is lacking, Ukrainian business practice in this industry allows us to talk about a net profit between 100 and 200 million USD per year. Hunter remained with the company until April 2019, receiving about 600 thousand dollars per year. Additionally, his company Rosemont Seneca Partners received monthly transfers of 150 thousand dollars. The Prosecutor General’s Office of Ukraine, led by Viktor Shokin, opened a total of six investigations against Burisma Holding on the grounds of tax evasion and money laundering. Two of them weren’t completed, whereas the remaining four were closed without further charges.
The first key moment in this story is the dismissal of Attorney General Viktor Shokin in 2016, on the specific request of Vice President Biden. Trump and his supporters, led by Rudy Giuliani, have since accused Joe Biden of abusing his position of power and pressuring Ukraine to stop further investigations against Burisma Holding and, by extension, his son. Yet Hunter Biden was never directly accused of anything, nor were the investigations building up to direct allegations against him. In fact, Joe Biden sought the dismissal of the Ukrainian prosecutor because anti-corruption organizations harshly criticized him for his insufficient efforts to battle corruption within his own office. Adding to that, the request for dismissal came during the time when Shokin was no longer involved in the investigation against Burisma Holding.
Fast-forward to 2019: Rudolph Giuliani, personal lawyer of President Trump, was reported to have planned a trip to Kyiv in order to discuss the case with Andriy Bohdan, head of the Presidential Administration of Ukraine, and Ivan Bakanov, chairman of the Ukrainian Security Service. With the help of American diplomats, he later established direct contact with Andriy Yermak, Zelenskyi’s personal aid. During talks about Ukrainian-American cooperation, the possibility of additional investigations in the Burisma-case and the US’ military assistance to Ukraine were discussed as well.
The second key moment of the scandal took place a month ago, when the White House publicized the transcripts of the phone conversation between Trump and Zelenskyi, which took place on July 25, 2019. This has caused international uproar, as many are of the opinion that Trump unapologetically pressured Zelenskyi into announcing investigations against Biden, his rival in the upcoming presidential elections. The infamous phone call has become the basis for the impeachment procedure, announced by House of Representatives speaker Nancy Pelosi, and will most likely have a lasting impact on the course of the US’ presidential election campaign.
Ukraine, what are you doing?
Ukraine, reluctantly, finds itself in the centre of an international scandal. Ukrainians don’t seem to care, as their media is barely monitoring the situation, let alone covering it. By Ukraine’s corruption standards, the entire Trump/Biden/Zelenskyi scandal is barely a blip on the radar and not worth the upheaval it’s causing across the Atlantic Ocean. Additionally, Ukrainians don’t find their President to bear any responsibility or guilt in the scandal. Yet they should care, as Ukrainian meddling in US internal politics can have dire consequences for Ukraine’s foreign relations and, subsequently, further internal development. It’s also worth investigating whether there has been any misconduct and abuse of power on the Ukrainian side which gives cause for criminal charges.
A lack of public interest, however, hasn’t dampened the self-serving reaction of the Ukrainian players in this unfortunate game of chess, making the situation grow tenser for our American counterparts. Viktor Shokin has grabbed this opportunity as a chance to dismiss the corruption allegations that got him fired in the first place. Republicans are encouraging his behaviour in this, as his testimony could become key evidence in the corruption allegations against Biden. Another ex-Attorney General, Yuriy Lutsenko, has almost single-handedly lit the fuse which caused this scandal to explode with his provocative statements, interviews and actions. His attempts to “sell” his influence and knowledge to both the Republicans and Democrats, have left both sides frustrated, with Trump going so far as to call him a “liar”. These reactions from the Ukrainian side are marked by a low level of professionalism and a superficial understanding of the situation.
According to the latest reports, three more Ukrainian actors have made their way to the stage of this intriguing drama:
- Oleg Voloshyn – a lawmaker at “Opposition Platform – For Life”, is also a good friend of Paul Manafort and adamantly defends his innocence. According to Voloshyn, Manafort has never received any off-the-books cash payments from the Party of Regions and the so-called “black ledger” proof was forged by Ukrainian officials in order to frame Manafort.
- Valentyn Nalyvaichenko – former SBU chief and current lawmaker at “Batkivchyna”. He has called for Ukraine to investigate both Hunter Biden’s role in the Burisma scandal, as well as Ukraine’s possible interference in the 2016 US elections. Nalyvaichenko has attempted to build connections with the Trump administration since 2017 and has travelled to Washington DC on two occasions to organize meetings through non-diplomatic channels.
- Andriy Derkach – independent lawmaker, previous lawmaker for Yanukovych’s “Party of Regions”, old friend of ex-Prosecutor General Yuriy Lutsenko. He released e-mail exchanges between the NABU and the US embassy, which discussed investigations into the aforementioned Zlochevsky. According to Derkach, these exchanges prove that the US was exerting pressure on the NABU’s investigation.
All three men have stressed the need to investigate Ukrainian interference in the 2016 US elections. However, considering their contacts, it seems rather unlikely that their motivation stems from desire to find out the truth about Ukraine’s role in the matter. Voloshyn is rumoured to be associated with oligarch Medvedchuk and Nalyvaichenko with Akhmetov, whereas Derkach is connected to Lutsenko. The three men are willingly being used as instruments in a plan to further a political agenda in favour of Trump and his supporters. The question remains: why? [AG3]
It’s very likely that the investigation in Ukraine’s supposed involvement in the US 2016 presidential elections would serve as an “out” for Paul Manafort, who was heavily implicated in the Mueller report’s probes into Russian involvement. It would support Trump’s counter-move against the Mueller report, claiming that it was Ukraine, after all, that meddled into the US elections under directions of the Clinton campaign. This narrative has, at the time, also been confirmed by a former employee of the Ukrainian embassy in the US, Andriy Telizhenko. He claimed that he was instructed by ambassador Chaly to find incriminating information on Manafort’s handlings in Ukraine and was prohibited from forming any contacts with the Trump campaign. He also claims that the Ukrainian embassy actively meddled in the presidential elections of 2016 by propagating the Clinton campaign within the Ukrainian community. This was perceived by Trump supporters as the answer to the Mueller report. However, aside for Telizhenko’s testimony, there’s no proof that the Ukrainian embassy handled inappropriately. Chaly has since then adamantly denied Telizhenko’s allegations. Telizhenko has since unashamedly cozied up to the Trump administration and, more specifically, Giuliani.
But what do Medvedchuk, Akhmetov and Lutsenko have to win in this scenario? Firstly, Medvechuk, being a well-known close friend to Russian President Vladimir Putin, wins in the destabilization of Ukraine on the field of international politics. Weakening Ukraine’s position in the eyes of the world, inadvertently also means a weakened Ukraine against Russia in further negotiations with regard to the conflict in Eastern Ukraine. If the Steinmeier formula will be implemented in the Donbas region, this might give Putin extra leverage in the organisation of “independent” elections, claiming that a corruption-riddled Ukraine can clearly not be trusted in the matter. Our second unexpected stakeholder, Rinat Akhmetov, has a past with Manafort which goes back to 2005, when he hired him to be a political consultant to the Party of Regions. Manafort has made over 60 million USD for his consultancy work in Ukraine and has returned the favour by passing on data from sociological polls on the 2016 presidential elections onto the Ukrainian oligarch. Akhmetov’s ties to the Trump campaign are unquestionable and give way to a logical explanation for his current interests in discrediting the implications against Manafort and attack Ukraine’s credibility. Which leaves Lutsenko: the man who allowed Kilimnik, a close associate of Manafort, to escape Ukraine in order to avoid being questioned by the US in context of the Mueller investigation. The man whose infamous meetings with Giuliani led to him promising to reopen the investigations against Zlochevsky and Burisma Holding, only for him to be fired by the new Ukrainian President later that same year. Trump clumsily mentions him in his conversation with Zelenskyi, obviously pressuring for the latter to reinstall Lutsenko and have him continue his investigation. It’s clear where Lutsenko’s allegiances lie and it’s unsurprising that he’ll try to remain useful to the Trump administration any which way he can.
Voloshyn, Nalyvaichenko and Derkach need 150 votes in parliament to establish an investigative committee. Despite their persistency, it’s very unlikely that they will obtain these votes any time soon. It remains interesting, however, that a number of politicians and powerful figures have already proven themselves to be opportunistic enough to try and get a hold of the upper hand in this scandal. It’s doesn’t seem to likely that others will follow, because of lack of public interest, but if they do, their allegiances will undoubtedly be divided between Ukraine’s prominent oligarchs.
It’s clear now, more than ever, that the Trump-Zelenskyi call is merely a small detail in an abundance of other scandals and processes, such as Russia’s/Ukraine’s alleged interference in the US presidential election in 2016, the Manafort case, several corruption investigations, the dismissal of ambassador Yovanovitch, as well as the tense tripartite relation between the RF, the US and the EU. The accumulation of all these factors has turned the situation into a powder keg, on the verge of explosion. Unsurprisingly, the constant involvement of new actors is only adding tension to an already highly destabilizing situation. The question remains whether de-escalation will still be possible if this continues.
USA and Ukraine – so happy together
When Zelenskyi first took office, organizing a meeting with Trump topped his list of priorities, in the hope of achieving tighter cooperation through bilateral agreements. The USA’s shadow foreign policy on Ukraine, however, has now led to a tempered enthusiasm and cautiousness on Ukraine’s side. There is a clear unwillingness to become tainted by more American scandals and to have Ukraine be misused in furthering an internal political agenda. On the American side, one thing is fairly obvious: there is no way this scandal will die a quiet death.
Trump’s team will continue to encourage escalation of the Biden story, supporting the narrative that the Biden’s are supposedly involved in corruption, shady deals and abuse of power in Ukraine. As the democratic electorate is much more sensitive to scandal, this will impact Biden’s ratings. Democrats will hit back with impeachment, based on Trump’s alleged extortionist phone call with Zelenskyi in order to sabotage his political opponent, as well as Giuliani’s questionable meetings with Ukrainian officials. Reopening the investigation, in se, would be a concession to the Trump administration and give Democrats the incentive to claim Ukraine’s a corrupt state which has succumbed to Trump’s pressure. Not reopening the investigation is an opportunity for the Trump side to claim Ukraine has been manipulated by the Democrats. Reopening the investigation and finding the Bidens not guilty, will trigger cries of corruption and a weak legal system from the Republicans, whereas a guilty verdict will lead to a similar reaction from the Democrats. For Ukraine, there’s no winning: whether it decides to restart an investigation into Burisma or not, it will most likely have to suffer through the slander of being a failed state which is withered by corruption and it will have to endure the wrath of either the Democrats or the Republicans if it dares to make a decisive move in this scandal.
It’s important that Zelenskyi realises the dangers of the situation Ukraine finds itself in. The current volume and format of American aid to Ukraine is determined by both the President and Congress combined, necessitating a certain similarity in position of the Democrats and Republicans. US assistance is paramount in Ukraine’s national security, the conflict with Russia, diplomatic support in the international arena and to maintain a multilateral anti-Russian sanctions regime. Succumbing to the pressure and picking a side – any side – would the worst option for Ukraine.
In any case, it’s certain that this scandal will impact the USA’s short term tactical approach towards Ukraine. However, its long-term policy has always remained rather consistent, even throughout changes in administration, and it’s highly unlikely this will be disrupted by the current scandal. Trump’s discourse with Ukraine doesn’t differentiate in essence from Obama’s policy, details – such as the supply of Javelin ATGMs and sniper rifles – aside.
Despite this reassuring stability, there’s no use for Ukraine to rock the boat. Maintaining a neutral position is key and assistance to the USA should be limited to the legal field, avoiding political involvement at any cost. As the outcome of next year’s US presidential elections is far from obvious, Ukraine’s notable preference for either side will render the country a disservice. Expert recommendations are unified and clear: Ukraine has to keep its head low and avoid being drawn into the US’ internal conflict as much as possible. President Zelenskyi seems to have realized this, as he mentioned during a recent press conference that he didn’t want to get involved in or exert influence on the upcoming US elections.
Burnt bridges or water under the bridge?
Ukraine’s international position has known limited damage because of the scandal, yet the same old arguments of a “weak and corrupt” Ukraine keep resurfacing, much to the delight of Russia. Although no radical impact has been made, it’s still become a painful confirmation of Ukraine’s institutional and systemic weaknesses, which are wearily witnessed by Merkel and Macron. Surprisingly, Zelenskyi’s embarrassing agreement to Trump’s claim that the EU does absolutely nothing for Ukraine hasn’t caused any serious deterioration in Ukraine’s relationship with France and Germany. His unfortunate taunts were perceived as the harmless oversights of an inexperienced novice.
However, the scandal has made a lasting impact as it has indefinitely suspended the possibility of expanding the Normandy Format to the USA. This plan already had a low success-rate, but now it won’t even be worth serious consideration. The future of the Normandy Format will further depend on Kyiv and Moscow, which means Zelenskyi will have to consider his willingness to take further steps towards Russia in consultation with Germany and France. This process will especially reflect Macron’s and Merkel’s true feelings about the infamous phone call and show whether the attitude of both countries towards Ukraine will remain unchanged. The future of the Normandy Format remains unfazed by the scandal, but the internal balances and loyalties may be subjected to alterations as the situation continues to unfold and more Ukrainian actors succeed to meddle with the USA’s internal political struggles.
All in all, Ukraine must be prepared for anything. For Zelenskyi, the recent upheaval serves as a valuable lesson that Ukraine’s foreign policy must, in the first place, be a powerful, independent tool, rather than a plaything for bigger forces in the international field. Instead of tightening Ukraine-USA relations, the opposite is taking place, with both sides being less prone to open, constructive discourse for fear of how it might be perceived by public opinion. Opportunists, also on both sides, are seizing the moment by pushing both the USA and Ukraine further into each other’s affairs, causing more damage to an already fragile relationship. Meanwhile, Trump sees possible post-Mueller report collaboration with Russia disappear like snow before the sun, as his position is significantly weakened by the threat of impeachment. It’s highly likely that the US, in order to “save” its relationship with the Russian Federation, will decrease its involvement with Ukraine in order to minimize possible confrontation with the Kremlin.
As logical as this assumption may be, it must be kept in mind that President Trump isn’t the most consistent and systematic player in the international arena. As further players keep making unexpected statements – such as Sam Kislin’s sudden claim to be Trump’s unofficial advisor on Post-Soviet country at a press conference in Kyiv last week – it is certain that there are still many storylines which are yet to be uncovered in an intricate web of lies and deceit. It’s a matter of time before these twists and turns will be revealed by the wide array of Ukrainian and American players. Undoubtedly, the US president will react according to tradition: erratic and impulsive.
