Maxim Grishchuk
Last Friday, the fierce battle for the post of Anti-Corruption Prosecutor entered the final stretch, as the selection committee selected two candidates for the position. It nominated Grishchuk and Kholodnitsky for the state's top anti-corruption post. It should be noted that the selection committee made a rather unexpected move by refusing to recommend the candidates considered the most highly rated and between whom the main competition was taking place. These candidates were two Deputy Prosecutors General – Govda and Kasko (Read more about it in the article Vitaly Kasko – a swindler, a corrupt official, a "shot-down pilot"). The first was considered Shokin's protégé, while the second was supported by public organizations and Ukraine's Western partners, primarily representatives of the EU and the US.
Nazar Kholodnitsky
In the fight for the post of Anti-Corruption Prosecutor, in the confrontation between Govda (Read more about it in the article Roman Govda: How a prosecutor became a fixer) - Kas'ko reflected the confrontation that exists in Ukrainian politics and society today. A significant portion of society and a certain segment of the political establishment are striving to consolidate the gains of the Revolution of Dignity and establish normal rules of life. Meanwhile, the political opportunists who rose to power on the crest of this revolution, uniting with the surviving (under-recruited and under-imprisoned) Party of Regions and other riffraff, are making every effort to keep everything as is, outwardly veiling it as "European standards." For the current state leaders (according to S. Gluzman, "the Sharikovs with knowledge of English"), true democracy, government transparency, and the fight against corruption are mortally dangerous. For they are the very essence of today's corruption.
Hence the clash that ensued during the formation of the selection committee for the Anti-Corruption Prosecutor. It reached the point where even Western partners felt it necessary to intervene in the process, as the one-sidedness of the initial composition was obvious.
So, by recommending the little-known Grishchuk and Kholodnitsky instead of the expected Govda and Kas'ko, the selection committee defused the tension surrounding the matter. Thus, the situation surrounding the appointment of the Anti-Corruption Prosecutor at this stage appears to have been defused, and the public no longer has any reason to be concerned.
In reality, things aren't so simple and straightforward. Can we assume that Shokin backed down at the final stage and let the situation unfold—whatever happens, the selection committee recommends, and the appointment will take place? Before answering this question, one important clarification is necessary. When we say Shokin, we certainly mean Poroshenko. For it's obvious to anyone with even a passing thought that Shokin isn't an independent figure—he's, figuratively speaking, "Poroshenko's hand." According to information coming from various sources, all significant matters concerning the prosecutor's office are decided not by the Prosecutor General's Office, but in the main office on Bankova Street. Deputy Prosecutor General Kasko, in a recent interview, bluntly stated that if the Prosecutor General spends so much time on Bankova Street, there won't be any talk of a European-style prosecutor's office in Ukraine for a long time.
Knowing the nature of the current government, its main goals, and the methods used to achieve them, one shouldn't assume it has washed its hands of influencing the selection of a candidate for the position of Anti-Corruption Prosecutor. Not at all. It seems that after effectively losing the opportunity to push Govda into the position (as this would have been a challenge to society and Western partners, on whom Ukraine depends for financial and diplomatic assistance), one of the backup options was played out. After all, besides the leading candidate for such a crucial position, there were undoubtedly a number of other backup options.
Judging by the performance of the selection committee (especially the representatives from Shokin and the BPP) during its final stage, one of the government's alternate candidates was among the top two recommended for appointment. In other words, the desired goal was essentially achieved.
It's safe to assume that Shokin (we say Shokin, we mean...) will choose Nazar Kholodnytsky. What, you ask, is the basis for this assumption? It's based on available information and logical analysis.
First, let's answer the question: does the current corruption-ridden government need a person in the top anti-corruption position who actually fought in the east of the country, who experienced firsthand the bungling (to put it mildly!) of the military and political leadership, who acutely senses injustice and is ready to fight it fearlessly and to the bitter end? I'm not sure Maksym Hryshchuk fully embodies these traits. But the fact is that, given his combat experience, he perceives the current government situation in Kyiv differently. Essentially, "cyborgs" are a priori dangerous to the current government in any position, especially if they wield lethal "anti-corruption weapons." This is precisely why Hryshchuk's chances are sharply diminished, despite the fact that he received more votes on the selection committee than Kholodnitsky.
Let's then turn to Kholodnytsky's biography – it clearly indicates that the prosecutor's office has been "favorable" to him. In 2014, at just under 30 years old, he rose from a rank-and-file position in the Kyivo-Svyatoshinsky District Prosecutor's Office to become Senior Assistant to the First Deputy Prosecutor General. He also held this position during the time when the infamous Mykola Gerasimyuk served as First Deputy Prosecutor General. Remember those "golden" years when Yarema and Danilenko, Poroshenko's cronies, were in charge of the Prosecutor General's Office?
During Yarema's tenure as Prosecutor General and Danilenko's as his deputy for personnel, Nazar Kholodnytskyi became First Deputy Prosecutor of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea. This occurred in late December 2014, when it was already clear that Yarema and Danilenko needed to pack their bags. Knowing this, they sought to secure the best possible employment for "their" people (something their successor, Shokin, is now doing). Regardless, Kholodnytskyi was appointed to this high-ranking position at the end of 2014.
It should be noted that since Russia's occupation of Crimea, the Prosecutor's Office of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea has become largely a nominal body. The Prosecutor of Crimea is essentially a minister without portfolio, or more accurately, a regional prosecutor without a region. But for a 30-year-old prosecutor, even a nominal appointment as First Deputy Prosecutor of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea is a good launching pad for career advancement.
Incidentally, Kholodnytsky's immediate superior, the Prosecutor of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea, is Vasyl Sinchuk. He was appointed to this position by Yarema last August. However, not without a hitch. The fact is, he had just spent a couple of days in another position beforehand – as Prosecutor of the Poltava Region. Rumor has it that he discussed his employment with Deputy Prosecutor General Danilenko. Initially, the Kharkiv Region, where Sinchuk had served as Prosecutor for a long time, was at stake. But they couldn't agree on something. The only thing they could agree on was Poltava Region. But then something suddenly changed. Apparently, they "agreed" on someone else higher up. And Sinchuk, before he could be appointed Prosecutor of the Poltava Region, was removed. Offering him any other position at that time was impossible (everything had already been allocated according to the "price list"), and, having a "purely moral" obligation to Sinchuk, Yarema and Danilenko gave him the honorary position of Prosecutor of Crimea. They assured him that he would "remain on their team." Shokin replaced Yarema, and Sinchuk continues to serve as Prosecutor of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea, with Kholodnytskyi as his first deputy. Now the latter is the number one candidate for the position of Anti-Corruption Prosecutor of Ukraine. Unless, of course, things change at the last minute.
Beyond all the fuss surrounding the selection committee and the shuffling of candidates, there's another negative aspect to the appointment of the Anti-Corruption Prosecutor. This is because the person making the appointment will be Shokin, who is not at all associated with the fight against corruption in the public consciousness. Quite the contrary, if we consider, for example, the "diamond prosecutors" case, in which the current Prosecutor General's interest is becoming increasingly obvious. Shokin's entire tenure as Prosecutor General is rather vague. On the other hand, it's clearly predictable and entirely understandable, given the primary purpose of his appointment. It's unclear, however, how, with the obvious "results" of his work and the enormous negative publicity (including internationally), he continues to serve as Prosecutor General and determine the country's future anti-corruption strategy by appointing the Anti-Corruption Prosecutor of his own choosing. After all, the Bible says that each person appoints personnel "in his own image and likeness." I just want to say: “Lord, when will this ‘similarity’ in Ukraine stop?”
Sergey Nikonov, ORD
Subscribe to our channels in Telegram, Facebook, Twitter, VC — Only new faces from the section CRYPT!