Egor Sobolev
Or rather, lustration for the oligarchs. Why does lustration, as we're implementing it, have every chance of becoming, if not a farce, then another corruption scheme. And certainly, another tool for oligarchic groups to influence the state system?
It's already been repeatedly noted that the law is written in a rather cunning manner. And the more daring are even saying it's specifically tailored to Lyovochkin. In terms of grounds for failing the audit. Why does the law's text, in some provisions, mention the time period "from November 21, 2013 to February 22, 2013," while a subsequent article states "from December 1, 2013 to February 22, 2013"? Could it be because Sergey Vladimirovich was practically the only high-ranking civil servant in the country to submit his resignation on December 1 of last year, precisely after the violent dispersal of students on the Maidan on the night of November 29-30, 2013? We are guaranteed not to know the truth about this dark story, which became the starting point for the million-strong Ukrainian protest, or about the real initiators anytime soon. And why is there a provision stating that only those officials who "voluntarily submitted their resignation" are exempt from lustration? That is, those who were removed from office because they refused to carry out criminal orders, took sick leave and vacations (as everyone always does), should have to prove they're not idiots. But Levochkin doesn't have to prove anything. Yes, he's an oligarch, and maybe he doesn't need this government service at all. But I just can't believe it.
If only because of the strange statement made on March 12th by Yegor Sobolev, head of the Lustration Committee. Discussing the list of officials subject to lustration, Sobolev explained at length why Lyovochkin was not on the list. He claimed his involvement in the dispersal of the rally on the night of November 30th had not been proven. And, more generally, "There is no reliable information, only a collection of rumors." And before that, Lyovochkin was perhaps a "dove of peace" in "Yanukovych's criminal team"? Or perhaps the "honorary head of the presidential administration"?
Speaking of Sobolev, why was this rather odd young man, born in Russia and a dropout from the Yuzhno-Sakhalinsk Pedagogical Institute, chosen for the role of chief lustrator, instead of other respected Ukrainian human rights activists like Yevgeny Zakharov or Semyon Gluzman? Perhaps because it will be impossible to impose anything on those who have spent their lives fighting the totalitarian system and for the rights of ordinary citizens, or to force them to play the role of an extra in someone else's game? Perhaps Sobolev's five-day stint in a pretrial detention center for participating in the "mock takeover" of the Kyiv City Council, or his investigative grant-winning achievements, will seem sufficient grounds for some to anoint Yegor the man capable of executing millions of Ukrainian citizens?
Does anyone really believe that the new (post-election) Cabinet of Ministers won't be formed based on an oligarchic quota? With up to 17 deputy ministers, as was the case under Tymoshenko's government—one from Kolomoisky, another from Firtash, a third from Akhmetov, a fourth from Pinchuk, and so on? Or that Kolomoisky won't have a quota for appointing heads of law enforcement agencies in Dnipropetrovsk Oblast? As, indeed, throughout the country. Why should we believe that heads of various government agencies, including the police, who are oligarchs, will be selected for financial-industrial groups through a competition based on honesty and non-corruption? Or that oligarchs won't appoint their own people to key government positions? You must admit—this is beyond the realm of fantasy. And if we don't believe in fantasy, then the lustration law isn't a purge of power, but a real tool for removing leaders at any level, prosecutors, and judges who are undesirable to a particular financial-industrial group. Isn't it clear that over the past 20 years, appointing a regional police chief has cost between 300 and 1 million dollars, depending on the size of the region? And it wasn't the chiefs themselves who paid the bills, but local business representatives who simply installed their own people.
Why should we trust the crystal-clear integrity of the Ministry of Internal Affairs' personnel commission, which decides who gets appointed and where? And why should we also believe that the lustrator Sobolev, who emerged as one of the first "public representatives" on this commission, will, with good intentions, break the pernicious practice of deciding on the appointment of heads of internal affairs departments, whose total "budget" exceeds twenty million dollars? Again, why not Zakharov, who has fought this system throughout the history of independent Ukraine, or Gluzman, who dedicated decades to the rights of prisoners in our penitentiary system, a remnant of the totalitarian Soviet Union.
And why should Sobolev, as the chief lustrator, have a parliamentary mandate? Isn't it because Lviv Mayor Andriy Sadovyi's "Self-Reliance" was originally a partnership project with Lyovochkin? Or does anyone still believe that Sobolev's wife, Marichka Padalko, the longtime host of "1+1," can't be dependent on Kolomoisky, the channel's owner? At least in the mundane matter of continuing to work for the channel. Or perhaps "1+1" is accidentally and impartially (like Lyashka) covering "Self-Reliance's" prospects in festive, candy-colored tones?
The law on individuals who collaborated with the KGB, as well as foreign intelligence agencies, is nothing more than populist. It's been an open secret for about 15 years that in 1991, the entire KGB agent file was moved from Kyiv to Moscow, along with other so-called "operational records." How are we going to prove individuals' collaboration with the KGB? Submit inquiries to "friendly" Moscow? Or maybe Lovochkin's "friends" from Lubyanka will suggest who in Ukraine should be purged and who shouldn't? At first glance, it seems ridiculous, but in principle, simulating such a possibility would significantly diminish the fun.
So who needs lustration—the people or the oligarchs? Obviously, the latter. Then who even brought this issue up? The public? So tell me, which one? Or maybe we should believe that former Komsomol leaders and Communist Party functionaries who now occupy the highest government posts won't be subject to lustration? Including absolutely the entire political elite, including representatives of Svoboda!
If this law destroys the entire state's governing body in the context of open warfare, Putin should definitely award government awards to "public lustrators." And if at least half the country has to be lustrated, then what kind of quality lustration can we even talk about? Sadly, it must be acknowledged that everything under discussion is nothing more than a new type of business—a cynical and harmful one, far removed from what is now vital for the survival and further development of Ukraine—a country at war with a death toll already higher than that of the 10-year war in Afghanistan.
Ivan RAKHMETOV, for SLED.net.ua
Subscribe to our channels in Telegram, Facebook, Twitter, VC — Only new faces from the section CRYPT!