Lawfare Daily: Purges and Power Plays in Domestic Ukrainian Politics

I don't think I can do it on purpose. I don't think I can do it on purpose. I don't think I can do it on purpose. I don't think I can do it on purpose. I don't think I can do it on purpose.

I don't think I can do it on purpose. I don't think I can do it on purpose. I don't think I can do it on purpose. I don't think I can do it on purpose. I don't think I can do it on purpose.

I don't think I can do it on purpose. I don't think I can do it on purpose. I don't think I can do it on purpose. I don't think I can do it on purpose. Range.

No. Frank. Hello. I'm Lena Kassel from Podcast. I'm in your car.

“So, I'm sure you'll know that you're on Facebook and you can tell the world of the world's biggest business.”

It's an August. It's a dream to be a great company and a great company. And it's a great company. It's a great company. The kickbase is just down-loaded and out-loaded.

Good kick. And fun. In his mind, would make him look weak. And he doesn't want that. It's the law of our podcast.

I'm going to steal a bite-in-a, Ukraine fellow at Lawfare with the Nellum Wokkerk, a reporter with the Warcrimes Investigations Unit at the Human Dependent.

Those people who first they came to the protest and then they stopped coming, they did

not lose faith in federal, they did not lose faith in protest, they did not change their convictions.

“The only thing they lost hope in was in President Zelensky's ability and willingness to”

hear them. Denella and I sat down to discuss the reasons behind the recent government reshuffle and Ukraine. And what the continuous protests mean for Zelensky's political future. So several weeks ago, we were in an episode discussing the current President of Zelensky's

decision to fire him a high-level federal, then Ukraine's Minister of Defense. And in that episode, I spoke with your current colleague, my former colleague, Francis Farrell. And we focused mainly on the conflict between federal and then chief of Ukraine's armed forces, General Serzky.

And President Zelensky said that federal Zelensky, basically were each other's thoughts

all the time, they couldn't communicate and it was hindering the war effort. He had to choose a side. Yeah, that's the official version by Zelensky. That was one of the earliest things he said. But as time went on, the public conversation shifted towards the issue of corruption.

Many prominent commentators, activists, journalists said that they believe that the main reason for federal firing was actually his attempt to reform the defense procurement process of the Minister of Defense. And that is something that he himself says. Right.

Exactly. Most importantly, federal of himself gave his first and Britisher only to this day interview after this whole saga with the protest began to Ukraine's capravda. And he himself said that, yeah, there was a lot of pushback to his reforms in the ministry, especially when it came to the public procurement.

So I wanted to begin our conversation with, you know, what do you make of this discourse

“around what are the real reasons for federal firing?”

Why is there no clarity on this issue? Well, there's no clarity on this issue because President Zelensky is not willing to talk to the Ukrainian public openly and honestly. And well, no one actually believes that the main reason for federal attacking was his conflict, the Serbian because, well, Serbian is fired now.

And people still demand the return of the federal. So if the conflict with Serbian was the only reason for firing him from the defense ministry, so now this reason is gone. So what's the problem?

It's basically the same story over again that we had last year when President Zelensky decided

to attack the anti-corruption infrastructure explaining that he needed to get rid of Russian influences that it was the official narrative and no one believed that because it was obviously untrue.

He gives you an official explanation that just doesn't sound plausible.

It just doesn't, you know, actually convinced anyone. Yeah, it convinced us no one.

“So I think it's also important to mention how he even gave this official reason to begin”

with. He didn't really give it willingly. He didn't make a statement or give a press briefing about the issue. He was asked by journalists during a briefing. But we think you're a starman, Kev, and he kind of had to answer.

But there was no, like, okay, I'm getting rid of this guy because here is what he did wrong or here is what we need instead.

That never happened, right?

But that's another problem that we have with Zelensky. I mean, he is unwilling to talk to the public in general. He's unwilling to answer serious questions that there are about him. Not only about his decisions, you know, about this position or that position about firing someone or hiring someone, but also about, you know, all the corruption cases that we have.

“And that may include him, you know, remember the, the dynasty, the dynasty cooperative situation.”

The last time that we had a big open press conference by Vladimir Zelensky is in February the last year, it's more than, it's about a year and a half. So why is that?

The president did not try to talk to all those people who gathered to protest against firing

a, a half-hider of, he did not invite any representatives of those people to talk to them. He barely acknowledged their existence in his addresses or or briefings. He did not let's say sit for an interview with the Ukrainian journalist to explain the situation, to explain his reasoning. He did find time for Laura Lumer, he did find time for Sky News during those protests.

But he did not find any time for a Ukrainian journalist to, you know, talk about the situation. And the last time that was a big, the biggest, the biggest protest that was in Kiev, it was, if I'm not mistaken, it was July 31st. There was a big march through Frisha Tick, yeah, like like 50,000 people, I guess, maybe more. And he, he didn't even acknowledge the existence of this march in his following address.

Not on the same day, there was no address on the same day in the next day. He did not even react. And that is, that is a precedent, who in 2019 came to power by constantly talking about

“you need to talk to people, you need to hear the role of the people, et cetera, et cetera.”

And so what happened to who are you and what did you do to the German landscape? Those were a good questions, he, he wasn't talking to the Ukrainian media, but as I mentioned already, a federal of the former minister did sit down for an interview with the Krenska Pravda. And he was very, he was very, I don't know what the red adjective is, very respectful. He continues to be extremely respectful of his relationship with the president because they

go way back and, I'd say, yes, yes, he's very shy to not name any names and not accused Zelensky personally of anything at all. But he did say that he tried to push a lot of reforms in the ministry, including reforming the procurement process and making it more transparent, making it more data-driven, deciding what the gigantic billions of dollars budget at the defense ministry gets spend on by what

actually kills most Russians on the front line and what, and not what, you know, some guy with political influence, thanks should be assigned contract. And he said that that pissed off, that process, those reforms to make their process much transparent, pissed off so many people that they just started knocking on the president's door and, you know, kind of surrounded the president with this aura of negativity and kind

of telling that, you know, a federal of needs to go. Another notable, I guess, comments were in this was by Therastymut, who is the director of a very widely respected foundation come back alive. He also said that while the, the fact that Tsirsky and a federal of didn't get along was, it was obviously true that there was a conflict and surely that contributed to the

who's going to be in, in control of the ministry of defense budget money. Right.

“And Zelensky ended up, as you already mentioned, getting rid of Tsirsky, that's, I guess,”

the biggest main update since we'll run the last episode of the subject. And I want to talk to you about why do things Zelensky did that, because I found it a little, I, I found that interesting, why did he dismiss Tsirsky, who's been a very loyal, you know, servant at his side for a very long time, why did he dismiss Tsirsky, but did not reinstate federal?

Because as you know, there is this point of view that, you know, he doesn't want to reinstate federal, because he doesn't want to seem like a weak leader, he doesn't want to seem like he's just like folding to the streets, but then he does get rid of Tsirsky. Yes, but it was, it was a way to give something to the street, okay, to acknowledge, well, I hear you, and this is something that I do by hearing you, okay.

So this is something that he was willing to do, because that did not entail him going back on his own decision. Now the decision to fire federal was his, making him reverse this decision in his mind would make him look weak, and he doesn't want that.

And the other reason is, we didn't, we did not really talk about the third possible explanation

for, for federal of sacking, the fact that he was becoming more and more popular, Zelensky started seeing him as a potential, as basically his potential rival, somewhere in future, in future elections, and he did not want that and he decided to get rid of him for that. Well, if that was the plan, it backfired like spectacularly, because federal rose up in all of the surveys that we, since then, and you can see that his potential rating right now

is around 13% and that's a lot, knowing that before that it was like, if federal even appeared in those, in those previous surveys, it was around like four or five, right now

“it's 13, and which is, which is more, even more important, his trust rating, a much”

much higher than Zelensky's. And the last survey that we had about possible hypothetical presidential elections showed us that Zelensky basically loses in a second tour of presidential elections, both to the illusiony, to federal, to Boudanov, so if we are talking about this purely politically, he made a big big mistake, and he's prospects, he's political prospects, brother Grimm,

I'd say, Zelensky's, the problem is that we do not really have a normal political life

right now in Ukraine, and we don't know when the elections can happen. So this, this is purely hypothetical, this is to understand the dynamics, but this is not about, you know, projecting real elections, we just see how the public reacts, and we see that, well, the Zelensky did, did shoot himself in both knees with that. If this was really his reasoning to get red of a political, of a potential political rival,

there's no way that he could just take him back. It seems like Fedrov wants to avoid appearing as a political rival. He does not even want to go to the protesters and talk to them.

“He has not once appeared actually on the streets, right?”

I mean, I don't know if you've gone to the protests, but, you know, a lot of money. Right, a lot of the journalists in Cape Haven, I have as well, and I, I can, I thought

always, every time that like, if Fedrov really wanted to play the political game, which

would, I think, also backfire, but that's a separate conversation. It would, like, you know, in the middle of people chanting his name, he could make a really dramatic appearance, right, but he never did it. He never did it, and actually I want to ask you about that. I mean, he said many times that he has no political ambitions, right?

And he, he, he, he, he said many dramatic quotes that have since gone viral, only kind of contributing to his political ratings even more.

care about, you know what, I mean, like, he was just like kind of renouncing all of these

political ambitions. Do you believe that? Do you think he's being genuine or do you think this is a part of a long game that he's playing?

“I believe, I believe that he is not feeling ready for that, at least, you know?”

At the moment, at least. at the moment. It seems to me from, from, from, from his interviews and there was not only the interview with the Queen's Caprava, he later than appeared. Right, my mistake. At, so he's the Nankos partcast. And to, and well, rhetorically, he's still kind of hopes to return to the Ministry of Defense. And it seems to me that it's a conflicted situation because a lot of people, who are not going to return to the Ministry of Defense, and it seems to me that it's a conflicted situation.

Because a lot of, a lot of the things he says, he says them in a way that makes you feel that he has already understood that the Ministry of Defense has gone for him, but there's a part of him that clings to it.

And it seems like, you know, this possibility to return there and to continue his work there really is more important to him right now than his, let's say, political career somewhere in the future.

“And maybe this is him being pragmatic, because once again, we do not know when there will be any presidential elections in Ukraine. So maybe the best thing, the most pragmatic thing he can do is to try to return to the government.”

I don't think is going to happen. That's the problem with it. Too full of points on that. I mean, you said that we're talking about hypotheticals, right, because nobody knows when the election's going to happen. And why it is true that it's kind of a far-fetched scenario at the same time, the government is actively planning all of these scenarios, right, like they're constantly pulling. Yeah, but it's been going for three years now, like they are constantly planning for three years now. Yeah, but it just, my point is that, you know, the, because some people are like, oh, why are the journalists talking about elections, why are you talking about this?

We're talking about it because the landscape himself is talking about it to his immediate circle, right, I mean, just recently there was this crazy reporting from Ukraine's couple of day and other outlets about this secret slash not so secret meeting, you know, the Zelenski had with a bunch of people in the government, including the illusionary, the former top general currently ambassador in London, sort of, you know, trying to gain plant potential elections in the fall, which is, you know, a very interesting idea for many reasons.

So, but yeah, I mean, I just wanted to make the point that while it is hypothetical, it is 100% being seriously considered, right, I think you've spoken about this before on your shows as well that it is notable that the president is making decisions, not based on what's good for the country, but based on his ratings and based on potential electoral timelines. So this idea, this idea to hold elections in somewhere late this year was based basically on his positive dynamic in surveys, you know, it was not based on thinking about what was good for the country, what's the best time to hold those elections.

“When does the frontline situation may be allowed to be stabilized, yeah? No, the reasoning is, when would it be best for me to have a presidential election?”

And that is actually, you know, kind of scary in a way, if you think about it seriously.

This was exactly my point, and my second point was about the fact that federal of in his public appearances does, you know, kind of leave some room open for the possibility of returning to minister of defense. But he's been also in this interim what it's been like three weeks, three or three years, weeks, almost almost a month now. Almost a month has been offered reportedly a bunch of other jobs. Yeah, but not really. Right. So you can talk about that. Like one of them was the vice prime minister for military technology, something like that, but some made up title without an actual ministry, right?

Well, yeah, vice prime minister is a government official, but it is someone who has no ministry, no team cannot really have, does not have any real input. And this is, and so it's a, it's a rather a role of, you know, government coordinator, government advisor, so the role of vice prime, vice prime minister is rather to to coordinate a specific policy between several ministries, okay.

So like it's, it's nothing, vice prime, it's not comparable to what he had before, right? Yeah, and again, it does not really, it would not really give him any significant power.

“If before that before, before being the minister of defense, he did have this double title in, in Ukraine government, he was vice prime minister slash minister of digital technology, okay, or digital transformation, right?”

So in this, he had both the role of coordinator as vice prime minister and his own ministry. Vice prime minister slash minister. Now he was only offered the role of vice prime minister and that would not give him any leverage to do what he wanted. It was, it was just a way, you know, for for Zelensky to calm the streets, to calm the protests. And I think that federal understood that, I mean, having a position does not mean having real power.

And he rejected all of these offers, right? He, he basically said that either minister of defense or nothing.

Yeah, as some accused him of being too greedy. I was just going to say. I was just going to say, the lending too much.

“Yeah, but you have to understand that vice prime minister does not amount to anything really.”

Yeah, the protests, I mean, against all of this are still ongoing, people come out basically every day. They've got in a lot smaller though, the crowds are smaller, right? And that is, I would say that is bad for Zelensky. I was just, so this was my question. You said in one interview and I thought this was very interesting that the fact that the protests began to die down is actually a bad thing for Zelensky. Can you explain that?

Well, that means that those people who first they came to the protests and then they stopped coming, they did not lose faith in federal.

They did not, they did not lose faith in protests. They did not change their convictions. The only thing they lost hope in was in President Zelensky's ability and willingness to hear them. So those who came and stopped coming.

“At first, they believed, well, the President will hear us.”

They stopped coming because now they think, well, the Zelensky does not want to hear us. And if he had them at first, he would keep them as his supporters. And he would even potentially increase this support. Right. And that is what happened last year when he went back on his decision to attack the anti-corruption infrastructure. Yes, he did dismantle his own plan.

But he also gave himself this image of a president who listens, a president that listens to his people. And that gave him actually that gave him boost. Yeah, he didn't even suffer lately. His ratings didn't even plunge because of that. Right.

Because he proved that I am with the people I hear the people. Now he does the opposite. And people that stop coming, they just don't believe that the president is still able to hear them. So I'd say that it is a bad sign for him. If more and more people stop believing that the president is hearing them, he is losing support.

He is losing legitimacy actually. Because you know, we have this very funny construction right now. And people elected voters. Find one way to put that. Yeah.

It's very peculiar. Yeah. When people elected, well, the Zelensky, they elected him for five years.

So his legitimacy from 2019 was basically for five years.

Now we had this situation, this social understanding that the situation is such. That president Zelensky gets to continue being president as we cannot have elections. Now this is the legal construction. And to me and you know, I've talked about it with a lot of constitutional lawyers. And most of them convinced me that yeah, this is how it works.

There's no like real discussion. No doubt about it. Yeah. Now legal, okay.

“But when we talk about legitimacy, which is not a legal phenomenon, but a political phenomenon,”

you need something more to feel legitimate. That was the consensus, the social consensus. Well, okay, president Zelensky remains president, but he is protecting us. Okay.

He is doing his job for us. Now when he stops projecting that, he starts losing legitimacy. And that is making him politically weak and politically vulnerable and politically much less stable.

And it is bad for, well, Ukraine is a state, you know, because when in a war like this, during a war like this, president starts losing this political something of legitimacy, that might be very dangerous for Ukraine. So it may seem to our audience right now that I am being very aggressive

and very critical about Zelensky and that I want bad things to happen to him,

but it is not so. I'm actually very worried about all those processes happening right now,

“because I see a president toying with a legitimacy that is so important for Ukraine right now.”

He is not toying with his personal political career. I could not call ass about his own political career. But when I see the institution of president of Ukraine weakening during a time like this, as a citizen of Ukraine, I am worried. And I think that right now,

President Zelensky is story with much more than his own political career. That is the problem, you know? And I see two years of love every day, and I believe in my best. Here comes the happiness.

I am always happy to stay alive.

But only an old dream. With mobile functions in real life, Frank, from the beginning to the beginning, I could say, for 10 euro a month. Frank?

No. Frank. Thanks, Katong. Check, internet, email, check, new address, check, and then a big beta. Between Kisses, Umelding and Möbel Aufbau,

I think the Strom Vertag is fast. Then you can see the automatically in the round-fersing. The opening is really great. With Octopus Energy, Waxels, you are completely ready to pay. Now, on Octopus Energy, the E-Waxes, and with the bonus code Octopus 1-1-5,

115 Euro Waxels, Bole Sichan. Every night, I wish you the best of luck. The quick look of the bed 1-3 on the street of your movement. So, the night is so dark. Now, online, you can see the bed 1-D.

You mentioned the really important phrase. What was it, the weakening of the institution? This actually said was perfectly into my next question.

“So, Ukraine is now defective without a minister of defense, right?”

Because the day after Federer was fired. And that's interim. We have an interim, right? So, the day after Federer was fired, the Ukrainian parliament did the only reasonable thing. One could expect them to do.

And that is to go in a month-long recess, which angered a lot of protesters. The best time to do that. The best time to take a month off. And so, lawmakers are due to come back to work on August 18th. And what's also important is the Federer of firing disturbed a large chunk of other institutions.

And Ukraine security apparatus. Yeah, because this whole change of government, the only reason for changing the government for firing the prime minister, that's just a U.S. for a thanker at the time. Actually, the reason behind all that was to get rid of Federer.

Right, yes. That seems to be the consensus, that seems to be the consensus in the society. But specifically in the Ukraine security apparatus,

basically the acting minister of defense right now,

So, he's a very respected general of Henchmara. That is true.

“He's not the acting minister of defense.”

I haven't heard anyone say bad thing about him. But me neither.

Right, I'll just list first all of these various reshoffles,

and then we'll discuss them. So, in his job, there is also no an interim leader. The interim head of the SBU is not his first deputy. I'll look under Paul Kled. And I've heard that things about him, though.

Okay, okay, we could discuss that. But the appointment I find most interesting is, of course, the fact that the interim head of Ukraine's foreign intelligence service is now Rostemu Meraf, who our listeners, I'm sure, have heard of, because he, he has gone through a number of top jobs in the government.

He used to be a defense minister at some point. Then he became the head of the National Security and Defense Council, which is just an advisory board with very little real power. And now he, as civilian with, like, a business career before entering government, is the interim head of Ukraine's foreign intelligence service.

“So, there are a lot of peculiarities here that I think are worth unpacking,”

but before we do, what do we expect to happen when the parliament is back in session? So, does the parliament have to vote on all of these appointments before they actually-- Yeah, we're coming on. For, right now, we have the interim minister of defense and the parliament is expected to vote for someone being an actual minister of defense.

We also have an acting minister of the internal external affairs, minister of foreign affairs. Oh, yeah, yes. So, we also have, we need to have a voting on that, too. We should have voting for the head of the Security Service of Ukraine.

So, that's three. The foreign intelligence service? No. Okay, so that's just an appointment. The parliament's intervention is not applied for this.

So, for the foreign intelligence service. Okay, so, umyadah is fully in the job. Umyadah is safe for this job. Well, most of them seem to be. I mean, it's very likely that if the parliament does not find the votes for Ivani Khmara as minister of defense,

that he would just remain acting minister of defense, that can happen. I don't think that Zelensky is going to budge on that. The thing is that... Khmara is not a civilian. Khmara...

That's first of all. There's a big protest planned for August 18th.

“And I think that the members of Ukraine and Parliament will feel this pressure.”

And the protest will be pro-federal. And, uh, well, just logically, they will be against Khmara. Although people that the protest is that they are not against Khmara as as as Khmara. As we've said, yeah, no one is actively... It's just a principle.

Yeah. And yeah, in Ukrainian law, the minister of defense is supposed to be a civilian. And his deputies are supposed to be civilians. And that is, uh, you know, the NATO standard of civilian control. Right.

Over the defense sector. So this is, like, completely okay. This is, this is completely logical. And this is why the Ukrainian civilian public gets to have an input about who is to be minister of defense.

You know, one thing about all these reshuffling and reshuffling by President Zelensky is that he acts as if, you know, the Ukrainian government was his own private firm. His own private enterprise. It is not so. Again, it is not President Zelensky who pays the minister of defense.

It is the Ukrainian public who pays the salary of the minister of defense. So maybe it's okay to have, you know, to have a say in the matter. But all in all, you know, all this reshuffling that happened.

And it's not the first time it happens on a bigger or a larger scale.

Think about it like this. Like President Zelensky has a box of say, a 30 puzzles. Okay. And he constantly tries to keep all those 30 puzzles. Most of them.

And to assemble different pictures with them, you know. By force. Now I'd by finding what works best with what. But just trying to smash it into into place. We see constantly all those same people getting different posts.

You mentioned tomorrow. This is his full. Winnie.

“I want us to take extra time on that particular appointment.”

We had a.

It's been widely reported that he is a, you know, has a close personal relationship with the president.

He is very much in the inner circle. He, his name also appeared on the infamous mending tapes about which I've written. The tapes were a bunch of different government officials were discussing a bunch of. Corruption schemes. So he used to be minister of defense.

Then he became the head of the national security and defense counsel, which, as I've said, is just kind of an advisory body to the president. And now he became the head of Ukraine's foreign intelligence service. And so the president said that he's going to keep his portfolio. So before this reappointment, he was part of Ukraine's negotiations team with the US and with the Russians.

And he also dealt with the drone deals with Ukraine's partners. And Zelenski said that in this new role, he's going to keep doing that.

“And that, that caused a lot of fury, I think, in Ukraine's society.”

Because making drone deals is not actually part of the job of the head of the head. You know, foreign intelligence service. That's not part of the dog description. And, you know, everyone is just a little confused as to why Umetah is actually in the job. And why he was giving this job.

And most importantly, we started with the segment with this. What this will do to the institution. What this will do to the institution of the foreign intelligence service. To its history, to its future and how it will erode the legitimacy of that service.

Yeah, well, the problem is that the Ukrainian president doesn't feel again the need to explain his decision to appoint this person or that person, fire this person or that person.

So I think, you know, that if he felt this obligation politically. To explain and to justify his decisions like the one with Umetah, that would be much less of such decisions.

“Because right now, I honestly cannot see anything that would convince me that Umetah would be at least an average head of the foreign intelligence service.”

I mean, what does make him an appropriate choice? Right. Like what connects Umetah to the foreign intelligence service? Like nothing. It's just a random appointment, basically.

It's a random appointment to keep someone president's landscape likes to keep him in the team. That's it. Remember, when there was this government change and Mikhailovadro was fired from the post of Minister of Defense.

At first, he was supposed to be replaced by the former Minister of Internal Affairs, Igor Klemenko.

So Igor Klemenko was fired from the job of Minister of Internal Affairs, Minister of Interior, to be appointed Minister of Defense. And it did not work out. The protest started. It turned out that there was enough votes in the Ukrainian Parliament for him. So they decided to look for a place for him and they found a place for him by firing a mayor of from the job of the Secretary of the National Security Council.

They gave this his post to Igor Klemenko, because, well, you know, it would be like unbecoming just to talk with him. To fire him and not give him any job. He's a good guy. You do not do that. No, it's a good guy.

You have to find a place for them. Tell them, found a place of the Secretary of the National Security Council. And they found something someplace else for a stand-alone mayor of this is like, if we were not talking about all of this in times of war, that would be a pure comedy. That would be absurd and that would be funny and that would be a good laugh a lot about that. But given the context, it's scary.

Again, I mean, it's chaotic. It's scary. It does not have a real state logic in it. And the amount of being on the mortgage tapes is maybe not the... Just a cherry on top.

Like, it's not the first time they would appoint someone who is a suspect or just someone who appears in a corruption case.

“They give high post to people like that all the time.”

Well, funny, you mentioned that. Because another... I don't know. I did that in purpose, yes. Very smooth.

I know you did that in purpose. So, yeah, I mean, again, we're laughing, but... But again, it's not funny. Yeah.

There is a famous line by a famous Ukrainian poet that roughly translates to...

I laughed so that I wouldn't cry. Shabnipwaka tias mialis. So, it's kind of a national thing that Ukrainians do. We laugh at these things, but it's actually very serious. Yeah, I mean, another kind of reshuffling that I want to mention in this podcast.

That's perhaps not directly related to the Federal of Saga. Or maybe it is, I don't know. Some say it is, but I don't believe that. Is the matter of Oliha's definition of? Right.

Well, until a few weeks ago, was the Ukrainian ambassador to the US. So, she was in Washington. And on August 3rd, Zelensky dismissed her from her post. And once again, he gave no official explanation. It just sort of happened one day.

And three days later, the National Anti-Corruption Bureau of Ukraine, known as Navu, charged the finition of corruption. So, they accused her of illicit enrichment and false asset declarations. You've been quite outspoken about its definition as potential- Yeah, because it's not a potential charge.

Right. So, back when she was a cabinet member,

“So, can you talk a bit about her background and the nature of all of these chargers?”

Who was she before becoming a ambassador? And she's been working in the ministry of justice for a long, long time, starting at least when Janukovic was still in power. This is Ukraine's, you know, the indefinite president. The fourth president who was linked to Russia in a variety of ways

and was overthrown from his post in the Russian dignity in 2014. Right. So, being in that government is really a stain on your reputation. Yeah, but it's more than just about reputation. So, 13 years ago, when Janukovic is still in power, August definition is working in the ministry of justice. And there is a procurement of several analyses of comparative analyses of Ukrainian law and the EU law.

And the ministry of justice pays, like the Ukrainian budget, the Ukrainian public pays more than $300,000 for that. And they pay to God knows who with no experience and all they get in return for this sum of money from 300,000 dollars of Ukrainian taxpayer's money. They get well trash.

“Okay. Well, I think you need to be a little more balanced than that.”

Like, what exactly are we talking about? We are talking about the analysis that is being a very low quality. And the analysis of those analyses proved that the quality is very low. More than that, it is also known that several Ukrainian institutions and institutions in Ukrainian universities were suggesting to do this same kind of work for free. Wow.

But that was a procurement. And some shady companies were chosen for that. And were paid for that. And August definition, I was one of those who were really implicated in this procurement. She signed a lot of documents. She signed the acceptance of the services provided in the analyses, right? Mm-hmm.

And how do we know this? Do we know this from Naboo?

At first when the investigation started, there was no Naboo even.

So it was the general prosecutor's office who started the investigation in 2014 after the revolution of dignity. So the process was very slow for political reasons because there was a lot of people who got some kind of protection in the Ukrainian government during the times of Petro Poroshenko. But then again, in 2019, she was served the notice of suspicion for this corruption case. From who? That was still from the prosecutor's office.

Mm-hmm. That was still from the prosecutor's office. Later this case got transferred to Naboo and to the special anti-corruption prosecutor's office. But the notice of suspicion in 2019, that was still served by the general prosecutor's office.

And in 2020, she is appointed Vice Prime Minister for European integration, okay?

Being investigated for corruption. The case is being investigated. The investigation is finished and she is getting charged. She isn't dieted. She served the indictment in this case. She becomes a defendant in the high anti-corruption court of Ukraine. And during that time, she gets one more appointment.

She keeps the post of Vice Prime Minister for the European integration. Plus, she gets the post of the Minister of Justice. Being the defendant in a corruption case. That is connected to her previous work in the Ministry of Justice. So that is funny how that works.

The case is still right now being examined by the high anti-corruption court. During that time, despite having all this, she was sent to the U.S. to serve the Ukrainian ambassador in the United States. And now that she is, she is sacked from that position. And she returned to Ukraine. She got a new notice of suspicion that you mentioned.

So she now got two cases, one when she is a defendant, the old one that I talked about. And now that the new one, when she has, she just been, she's just been served the notice of suspicion for illicit enrichment, let's say. So two cases here.

“But the new case involves her lying on her asset declarations, right?”

And apparently having and operating with more money than she is supposed to have. There's several things that point to that. Well, the Naboo thing, okay, Naboo states, that she bought two apartments in Kiev through a friend of hers. So she did not sign papers herself. She asked a friend of hers to buy two apartments with money that she should not have.

Right. According to her official asset declarations, that's underclared money. Underclared money and well, not only underclared money, but also on earned money. Because everything that is declared is officially, so that's about unofficial money that she got from somewhere. And also other expenses that she had or paying cash for this and for that.

So several people say, well, this is a minor case, this is not a big corruption.

And this says about 13, 14 million Ukrainian governments, okay?

So we are talking about what hundreds of thousands of dollars.

“But I think that this kind of reasoning is like really, really dangerous, okay?”

Those who try to defend all has definition of such an narrative are basically promoting tolerance to corruption. And I've heard that in that previous case about this procurement of comparative analysis of Ukrainian law and EU law. Well, it's only about $300,000 the procurement. So what's the big deal? And I think that this kind of reasoning is more dangerous and helps actually to keep Ukraine corrupt much more than any corrupt officials.

If you plan this idea in the heads of Ukrainians, that there is bait corruption. When it's about millions and billions. And that there is minor corruption. And if it's only about hundreds of thousands of dollars. So there's nothing to investigate and there's nothing to to indict people for.

“This is what to me. It is outrageous. I mean, it's like, it doesn't work this way. You have to promote zero tolerance for corruption to have at least a chance to fight it to a decent level.”

If you start saying, well, that hundreds of thousands of dollars is okay, we will never get corruption in Ukraine to a decent level.

Do you think that her firing was somehow connected to the novel case? Like, was she fired to avoid a bad look? You know, is sitting in a mass box and is charged? Maybe, maybe, maybe it was the reasoning behind that because the room about her upcoming dismissal from this position. Started circulating, well, two weeks before it happened.

And the room connected this upcoming second to a new corruption case.

And both proved right, proved true. I mean, the second happened and the new corruption case happened. So I think they, they are connected.

“Have we, have we heard anything credible about who the new Ukrainian ambassador to the US?”

Well, the mayor was rumored to be the new Ukrainian ambassador in the US. And you, yes, but then go the former Prime Minister. Yes, but then go, well, if she was actually rumored the first, she, if it was the first.

She was tapped to the first, yeah, yeah.

But if I'm not mistaken, she refused herself. She did not want to. Right now, there hasn't been a decision yet. Yeah, right now, there were talks about Mr. Police, who is Mr. Budanoff's deputy. Yeah, the military guy from the presidential office. The deputy had of of Zelensky's presidential office.

There was this rumor. If you remember, he was present at the last meeting between Vladimir Zelensky and Donald Trump. And Trump complimented Mr. Police saying that this is my favorite guy. Something like that. So there, there was this rumor too, but nothing to concrete.

“And I think we'll just have to wait, because then again, don't hope for it to be very logical.”

And don't hope for it to be transparent. And don't hope for it to be not even explained, but explain the ball to the public. We will just have to observe and accept the nilla. Thank you. And once we know who the next ambassador is, I'm sure there's going to be a lot to discuss and we'll bring you back.

Thank you for coming. Well, see. Thanks for having me, yeah. The law of her podcast is produced by the law of her institute.

“If you want to support the show and listen at free,”

you can become a lawfare material supporter at lawfaremedia.org/support. Supporters also get access to special events and other bonus content we don't share anywhere else. If you enjoy the podcast, please rate and review us wherever you listen. It really does help. And be sure to check out our new other shows, including rational security, scaling laws,

allies, the aftermath, and escalation. Our latest lawfare presents podcast series about the war new crane. We can also find all of our written work at lawfaremedia.org. The podcast is edited by Jan Pachea. Our theme song is from Alabama Music.

As always, thanks for listening.