In his text published on New Eastern Europe titled “The Ukrainian government’s Memory Institute against the West”, Andreas Umland brings up some important questions in his analysis of the Ukrainian government-funded Institute of National Remembrance. Nevertheless, he falls into pitfalls of his own choosing and three points need to be clarified.

Is history repeating itself in Ukraine? After popular mass protests, a president comes to power promising reforms and European integration but does not provide the political will to fundamentally change the kleptocratic coalition of clans that rule the country. The president maintains the criminal old guard in power and corrupt oligarchic system in place. The public becomes increasingly angry that no “bandits” are being sent to jail.

The unexpected election of Donald Trump as president of the United States has brought shockwaves in the US and around the world with headlines talking of a “crisis in foreign policy”. His victory is allegedly a “boost to Putin”. Trump’s election campaign rhetoric certainly merits caution in his domestic policies. During the election campaign, Trump was heavily criticised for having close ties to Russia and saying positive words for Russian President Vladimir Putin. US intelligence agencies accused Russia of hacking into Hillary Clinton’s campaign and working for a Trump victory. The former acting director of the CIA Michael Morell described Trump as an “unwitting agent of Russia” and Russian state duma deputies applauded his election. Nevertheless, an improvement in relations between the two nuclear powers is unlikely to take place for seven reasons.

The Ukrainian diaspora has been a cheerleader for democratisation, reforms and the integration of Ukraine into Europe while, simultaneously, some of its members have been willing recipients of Ukrainian oligarchs’ financial assistance. These two stances are contradictory because Ukrainian oligarchs are often pro-Russian or at the very least they are only interested in personal enrichment and not Ukraine’s national interest and are never supportive of the establishment of a rule of law based state in Ukraine. Acceptance of funds from Ukrainian oligarchs shows that financial donations have been paid to a far larger group of people than only US political consultants.

While the western media has been recently full of reports and analyses of Paul Manafort (now former manager of Donald Trump’s US presidential campaign) and his ties to former Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych, Russian President Vladimir Putin and Russian intelligence, the deeper links between Ukrainian oligarchs and Washington are only beginning to see the light of day. A report in the New York Times about ties between the Clintons and international funding, including from Ukrainian oligarchs, was merely the tip of the iceberg.

Those who have watched the Netflix series House of Cards may be surprised to read how close it is sometimes to reality. Both candidates in this year’s election for president of the United States – Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump – have accepted donations from Ukrainian oligarchs and Ukraine’s former president, Viktor Yanukovych, who is in hiding in Russia. Yanukovych is wanted by Interpol and by Ukraine for mass corporate raiding of Ukraine’s state budget and leaving the country bankrupt, murdering EuroMaidan protestors and committing treason when he supported Russia’s annexation of Crimea.

On July 8-9th 2016, NATO is holding its second summit since the Ukraine-Russia crisis. In Newport, Wales in September 2014 a “crisis summit” took place a few months after Russia’s annexation of Crimea and the invasion of Ukraine. At a conference leading up to the Warsaw Summit titled: “NATO. The Enduring Alliance” organised by the Foundation for German-Polish Co-operation, I stated that “Ukraine saved NATO”. Why did I say this? 

A review of Richard Sakwa’s Frontline Ukraine. Crisis in the Borderlands. Published by I. B. Tauris, London, 2015.