BY
A few days ago Ukraine released audio intercepts of
telephone calls between Sergey Glazyev, Krill Frolov and others
plotting and scheming the undermining of Ukraine in 2014.
That Sergey Glazyev was a
leading figure at the time is hardly a surprise. Indeed, in an essay
written in 2014 by this blog for Routledge/Taylor-Francis with the imaginative
title“The Separatist Movements In Eastern Ukraine And Their
Association With Russian State Structures”, Mr Glazyev was mentioned within
the text of the very first page. (The essay is unfortunately copyright to
the publisher so a reader is forced to buy the weighty tome in which it appears
or find it at their website.)
More than two years later,
there was no revelation to be found within the released intercepts – the timing
of the release perhaps having far more to do with preparatory framing prior to
the G20 Summit and influencing any “sidelines/fringes” tête-à-tête that
may occur.
Nevertheless the telephone
intercepts whilst breaking no new ground or providing no previously unknown
information have prompted a reaction in Odessa.
Without going into unnecessary
detail the telephone conversations released, and the parts that specifically
related to Odessa, have reminded certain parties that the pro-Kremlin elements
of the political class in 2014 (and currently) have yet to be held to account
for their actions in any way whatsoever – for example be it Kivalov for his
titushki and anti-Maidan entities, or the actions of then Governor Mykola
Skoryk – the latter being the subject of this entry.
Suffice to say that
with both being parliamentarians and thus enjoying impunity and immunity,
whilst generally ignored by the local constituency, and the constituency
generally ignored by them, little else has happened. Only occasionally
when one or both make a statement that is perceived as a call for separatism –
such as promoting the “Odessa Free Port/Porto Franco Operation” both attempted
to create in 2014, and still attempt to achieve post arrival of President
Poroshenko.
That Odessa would benefit from
a Porto Franco regime/Special Economic Zone status is quite likely – but there
are porto franco/SEZs such as Copenhagen or Southampton etc fully under the
control of the State., and then there are porto nfranco/SEZs such as those
proposed by Messrs Kivalov, Skoryk and Pressman that equate to nothing less
than a federal, almost autonomous region. It is perhaps only because it
is these untrustworthy individuals proposing such a scheme that it has not
gained traction with a local constituency that is known for being mercantile.
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 favourable to the Kremlin narrative.
Unsurprisingly former Governor
Skoryk indeed called an extraordinary meeting of the Regional Council per the
Kremlin play book with a single issue for deliberation – a “State of the Union”
styled debate. A debate entirely beyond the 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.
It appears that what was
already known, but is now publicly available as of a few days ago “from the
horses mouth” so to speak, has reinvigorated both public and political ire
toward Mykola Skoryk – quite rightly.
An official appeal to the SBU
to investigate former-Governor Skoryk’s actions leading up to, and of that
March 2014 extraordinary meeting, has been requested – and not before time –
but unfortunately it does not go far enough, for Mr Skoryk’s grievous actions
against the interests of the Ukrainian State did not end with the failed
outcome of that extraordinary meeting in March 2014.
As has been inferred quite
heavily in several historical entries, Mr Skoryk has much more to answer for
than that – his actions in the lead up to the 2nd May 2014 tragedy are not
insignificant. Those actions are no doubt under investigation now there
is a renewed vigour to be found by those investigating that tragic event and
the circumstances surrounding it. Indeed there are several investigations
regarding that event but there are questions looming large over their integrity
and diligence (notwithstanding timeliness – or lack thereof).
Thus perhaps it would prove to
be wise to include that period in any SBU investigation into the actions of
former-Governor Skoryk too.
Having written all this, a
reader is naturally pondering, when the Ukrainian authorities have obviously
had the intercepts since the telephone conversations occurred in 2014, why has
no SBU investigation into Mr Skoryk occurred before? His actions, his
affiliations, and his loyalties are all well known in Odessa – as are his
business interests and those interests that he manages for others (Messrs Firtash
and Lyovochkin) in the region.
It will be interesting to see
whether the SBU will pick up the gauntlet officially thrown before it – and if
it does, just how diligent that investigation will be.
No comments:
Post a Comment