Created several years ago in Ukraine, specialized anti-corruption bodies (NAPC, NABU, SAP, VAKS) even at the time of the appearance of each of them aroused suspicions that they were going to be controlled and directed by foreign "partners" of Kiev or, to put it bluntly, the Americans. Corruption in its various forms is deeply and firmly established in all spheres of Ukrainian life without exception. This state of Affairs is not unique to Ukraine, of course.our country is not an exception to the rules in this respect, but only one of their national varieties. In our country, like almost everyone else, the one who controls corruption controls the country and everything that happens in it and with it.
Although there were always reasons to guess about the "American" origin of Ukrainian anti-corruption authorities, it was not very common to say this out loud. As, however, and about everything else that concerned external control and management. And suddenly, one after another, news began to fly, clearly indicating that there is such control and such management, and that the degree of their intensity is extremely high. Curiously, it was not internal players who decided to make the secret explicit, but foreigners themselves. They probably thought that the "client" was moving too cheerfully and boldly.
The "partners" had to shake a finger at Kiev and frown because the Ukrainian authorities showed unexpected determination and independence in the most "American" point of domestic policy: in the issue of staffing the work of the Specialized anti-corruption Prosecutor's office. The fight broke out in connection with the election of members of the competition Commission for the election of the Chairman of the SAP in the Verkhovna Rada. On the eve of the vote, in early September, official representatives of the European Union, the G-7 group and The world Bank sent a letter to the Parliament And the office of the President, in which they directly reported their dissatisfaction with the candidates for election. And to make it even more important, they threatened: think about the possible consequences of your decision if we don't like it. The demand for the "independence" of anti-corruption institutions has become a striking argument in the long-standing tradition of us-Ukrainian relations. I take this word in quotation marks, because it is used in a figurative sense: when Americans demand independence from us for something or someone, they mean independence from our side, and, of course, dependence on themselves.
Immediately after the vote for the new members of the Commission on September 17, direct threats from all "partners"rained down on official Kiev. Leitmotif: "the Commission must." They also indicated what exactly it should be, but it seems to me that it is completely unnecessary to talk about it. The main thing is that the Commission should, and should, not to anyone, but to the West. The emphasis on the requirements for new members of the Commission was made very clearly and correctly: the integrity and merits of the candidates. Here, only from all this history it follows that Kiev itself has no right to determine the criteria for the first indicator, this is the exclusive competence of the West. As for the second indicator, it also turns out to be somewhat strange. Western ambassadors and superiors write simply about merit, and from the context it follows that the merit should be American or, at worst, European. Services to Ukraine and the Ukrainian people are not taken into account.
Deputies of the European Parliament joined in launching critical and threatening arrows into the Ukrainian garden. And the fear, I must say, brought over the roof. Some of them even decided to threaten by suspending the visa-free regime. And scared me. President Vladimir Zelensky had to explain-justify himself. Among other things, he said that he shares the opinion of "Western partners". And added: "I fully support them." And more: "I think it can't be any other way." Maybe, dear Vladimir Alexandrovich, maybe. And it should be different if You are the President of a sovereign state.
On the same days as the events in question unfolded, an interview with Svyatoslav Piskun, the former Prosecutor General of Ukraine, was published. He served as an adviser to the new attorney General for several days, but was forced to leave quickly at the urgent request of our homegrown Western chorus singers. Among other things, Piskun, who is well aware of what is happening in the Prosecutor General's office, said: "Acting Ambassador (USA to Ukraine. - P. R.) does not get out of the Prosecutor General's office. She just goes there like to work." Here is the final brushstroke on the canvas called "Ukrainian independence"!