BY
On 3rd October 2016 Prosecutor
General Lutsenko announced that, (as long anticipated), a request to the
Verkhovna Rada to lift the immunity of Oppo Block MP Vadim Novinsky would be
submitted on 4th October.
The investigations surrounding
him relate to abuse of power and the unlawful imprisonment of high ranking
church officials during the rule of the Yanukovych regime whilst attempts were
made to “change” the leader – and his “aggressive” entanglements with the some
within the church have continued since the flight of the Yanukovych “family”.
Coincidentally – or not – the
day that may (or may not) see his Deputy immunity removed, Mr Novinsky is due
to leave Ukraine and arrive in Greece where he is to visit Mount Athos in the
company of high ranking Orthodox clergy. A trip that is scheduled to last
only the weekend.
Depending upon who you may
talk to within the Opposition Block this is either persecution of a leading
Oppo Block MP, or a diversionary tactic of the current leadership to draw
attention away from its failing policies, or both.
In Odessa, on the same day as
PG Lutsenko’s announcement relating to Mr Novinsky, the local Oppo Block
announced it was leaving the “for Porto Franco” group within City Hall to avoid
being tarred with the “separatist” brush – this after 2 years of membership.
It is certainly true that
despite any possible economic benefits to Odessa becoming a free port (again)
the “for Porto Franco” project is certainly viewed as a “separatist” project by
many.
This is perhaps unsurprising
considering it was swiftly suggested by ex-Regionaries soon after the Crimean
annexation, during the early days of the occupation of the Donbas, and
whilst the Kremlin was regularly banging the “federalisation of Ukraine” drum.
This was perhaps aggravated further as the level of free port autonomy
sought/expected was similar to that of Hong Kong – rather than that of Southampton
or Stockholm.
The immediate withdrawal of
the local Oppo Block deputies now leaves on those associated with, or members
of, Sergie Kivalov’s local Maritime Party – about half a dozen.
In short, the timing, the
sponsors of the project, the degree of autonomy sought/expected, and the
general circumstances at inception produced a project that would clearly be
perceived as one with more than suspect motivation. Thus the “for Porto
Franco” political group has thus yet to hold a meeting that was not disrupted
(and abruptly ended) by local pro-Ukrainian activists at each and every attempt
over the past few years.
However, after several years
remaining within such a controversial local political group actively attempting
to sell the concept to a suspicious local constituency, it is upon the very day
that the announcement of immediate attempts to deny Mr Novinsky his immunity
that the local Oppo Block became concerned about a perception of being
associated with “separatism”.
Such a label has not bothered
the local Oppo Block for the past 2 years – and as political coincidence is far
rarer that political conspiracy, a reader will ask whether there is a
connection?
The answer is probably – if
indirectly.
The local (and regional) Oppo
Block dances to the tune of Dmitry Firtash’s/Sergei Liovochkin’s man in Odessa
– Verkhova Rada MP Mykola Skoryk. No local policy positions/decisions
occur without his consent or instigation. Therefore the Oppo Block
leaving the “for Porto Franco” group within City Hall occurs at the
instigation, or with the consent of, Mykola Skoryk.
How is this linked with the
events surrounding Mr Novinsky, or alternatively how does it help him?
The short answer is that it
isn’t and it doesn’t.
This local act has far more to
do with the protection of Mykola Skoryk.
Having now witnessed Mr
Novinsky’s immunity removal application submitted, it
is widely known that Mr Skoryk is almost certain to be
the next Oppo Block parliamentarian to see a request to lift his immunity to
answer for past deeds when he was Yanukovych’s Governor of Odessa (and perhaps
his deeds in following few months after his dismissal).
Deeds such as alleged
involvement/sanctioning in the beating of journalists and protesters outside
Oblast Administration in February 2014.
Deeds that are certainly
perceived to be associated with separatism and that follow precisely timelines
and actions matching the revelations of the Glasyev leaks. Within the
2014 telephone intercepts released, Mr Glazyev laid down some ground rules to
create the necessary smoke and mirrors for Kremlin support – including regional
oblast building seizures and votes by regional councils favourable to the
Kremlin narrative.
Unsurprisingly in March 2014,
former Governor Skoryk indeed called an extraordinary meeting of the Odessa
Regional Council per the Kremlin play book and time line with a single issue
for deliberation – a “State of the Union” styled debate to result in a Kyiv or
Moscow vote. This despite there being no significant public pressure to
do so – in fact the opposite. It was also a debate far beyond the legal
competency of both then Governor Skoryk or the authority of the Regional
Council.
Fortunately then Governor
Skoryk and the Kremlin play book failed to find a particularly willing or
compliant Regional Council. The council members were clearly far more in
tune with the public mood than the then Governor who was following The Kremlin
script.
After his dismissal as
Governor, there are then deeds that manifested in more than mere tacit support
during the events leading up to, and following, the 2nd May 2014 tragedy –
which incidentally left him despised by both those sympathetic toward Kyiv and
also those sympathetic toward Moscow. (Should he ever go to jail and
there be “protests”, those “protesters” will be turning out for a day’s pay.)
Ergo, with such a potential charge
sheet facing Mr Skoryk, when next on the immunity-stripping list it perhaps
pays to officially withdraw the local forces under his command from
unnecessarily awkward groups.
Most assuredly if Mr Skoryk
was not next on the list, the Oppo Block local deputies would have remained in
the “for Porto Franco” group continuing to pay no mind to the “separatist”
label that has suddenly become an issue – however imminent events surrounding
Mr Novinsky dictate the need for preparatory mitigation.
No comments:
Post a Comment