Nikolai Knyazhitsky: the TV swindler

Nikolai Knyazhitsky: the TV swindler

Ukrainian politicians have convincingly proven that patriotism is the last refuge of the most hardened scoundrels. And for some of them, until recently, freedom of speech and human rights were such a refuge. They manipulate these concepts to their own ends as skillfully as they rip each other off. Mykola Knyazhytskyi is far from the worst of them, primarily due to his ability to extricate himself from any situation. And yet, it's astonishing how such a man could be considered a mouthpiece for the truth for so many years, and today finds himself responsible for the culture and spirituality of the Ukrainian people.

Nikolai Knyazhitsky, Vesti, Soros and the National Council

Knyazhitsky Nikolai Leonidovich He was born on June 2, 1968, in Lviv, into an intelligent family of teachers. As he himself recounted, his maternal grandparents (Anton and Praskovya Vasko) hailed from the Sokal district of Lviv Oblast, while the Knyazhitsky family, in addition to Ukrainians, also included Poles and Jews. His parents tried to raise their son to be upright and educated, but as a result, young Kolya grew up to be a capricious, bookish scholar with no interest in science or work. However, his talent for speaking clearly opened the door to television or radio, where he was paid. Therefore, after graduating from high school in 1985, Nikolai Knyazhitsky entered Taras Shevchenko National University of Kyiv.

After his first year, in June 1986, Nikolai was drafted into the Soviet Army, so he didn't return to KSU until 1988. It was a turbulent time: the university's student community was seething with politics, with cells and movements springing up. However, Knyazhitsky apparently didn't participate in this; he didn't even make an appearance during the student "revolution on granite" in the fall of 1990. Instead, Knyazhitsky found part-time work in his field while still a student. Beginning in February 1989, as a second-year student, Knyazhitsky was listed as a freelance correspondent for Gosteleradio, and in 1990, he even made several appearances on "Vecherniye Novosti" and "Television News Service." From February 1991 to January 1992, he became the head of the correspondent office of the Soviet-Canadian joint venture "Bridge Television and Radio Broadcasting Company", and in the summer of 1992, after defending his diploma, he got a job as a correspondent for the "Vesti" program of the Russian Television and Radio Broadcasting Company (RTR).

But this was his first and last experience of working as an ordinary journalist.

That same year, 1992, Mykola Knyazhitsky became director of the Center for Television Creativity, better known to Ukrainians for his program "Vikna." What no one knew, except for a few insiders, was that the center's funding came from the Renaissance Foundation, the main Ukrainian branch of the Soros Foundation. Who helped him "steal" the grant remains a mystery. After all, it's well-known that at the time, Soros grants were "stealed" by former Komsomol members who had their eye on the ball and had reformed themselves in the right direction.

Knyazhitskyi enjoyed management positions (director, editor, chairman, etc.) much more than journalism. It could be said that this was where he found his calling, and it also provided direct access to vastly larger sums of money than the salaries of ordinary TV presenters. So, from the moment he graduated from KSU, Knyazhitskyi tried to find a place, if not in a leadership position, then at least at the table of some committee. His appearances on television as a host of news and analytical programs were more of a self-promotional exercise and an opportunity to lecture Ukrainians on screen.

In 1994, Knyazhitsky became president of the International Media Center, a further development of the Center for Television Creativity, which now received Western grants from the American company Internews Network, which positioned itself as a non-profit project supporting independent electronic media in various countries. Its programs, including "Vikna," were broadcast on UT-2 frequencies and were grouped under the name "STB." The origin of the name has long been forgotten, but it was rumored that the acronym could have stood for "suspіlne telebachennia."

Vladimir Sivkovich

In 1997, Vladimir Sivkovich, a former KGB officer specializing in radio communications who had entered business and politics in the early 90s, became interested in the project. Having become close with Knyazhitsky (they almost became friends), Sivkovich offered to help STB acquire its own broadcast frequency and the necessary equipment. Thus, STB became yet another Ukrainian television channel, launching on June 2, 1997—Knyazhytsky's birthday. He became its president, overseeing all management and editorial functions, and also hosted the program "Vikna-nedilya" (Windows-Weekly) as a presenter. Sivkovich headed the administrative board of JSC International Media Center—STB, and he had two interests in the channel: commercial and political advertising. This was quite opportune, as the controversial parliamentary elections of 1998 were just around the corner.

And that's where Mykola Knyazhytskyi's career took off. They were noticed at the very top and promoted: in September 1998, Knyazhytskyi was appointed president of the National Television Company of Ukraine, and Sivkovych became an advisor and assistant to President Kuchma.

Also, in March 1999, Knyazhitsky became a member of the National Council on Television and Radio Broadcasting, which effectively controlled all the electronic media of the time. It was then that Knyazhitsky, a former champion of free speech (for which he received grants), experienced the power of censorship and the licensing system. And judging by subsequent events, he quite liked it!

But then, just before the 1999 presidential elections, things didn't work out between Sivkovych and Kuchma: rumor had it he wanted too much for "political advertising." As a result, STB was practically raided, and, as Knyazhitsky claimed, he himself had to hide in his dacha. Roman ZvarychAfter the arson of his apartment and the mysterious death of STB TV presenter Maryana Chernaya, Knyazhitsky persuaded Sivkovich to capitulate and sell the television channel to Lukoil entities. In exchange, Knyazhitsky, according to reliable sources, Skelet.Org, Sivkovich promised to help him acquire another television channel: the American company StoryFirst Communications, which owned several media outlets in Ukraine and Russia, agreed to sell its 50% stake in ICTV. They were sold, according to Knyazhitsky, for an amount equal to the value of a Kyiv apartment. However, Sivkovich was simply ripped off: the new owner of ICTV turned out to be the president's son-in-law. Viktor Pinchuk, who immediately invited Nikolai Knyazhitsky to his new television channel. At the same time, Knyazhitsky was reinstated as a member of the National Council on Television and Radio Broadcasting.

The main price for the amnesty was Mykola Knyazhitsky's appearance on ICTV's political programs (news and analysis), where he passionately tore apart the scandal surrounding the "Melnichenko tapes," defended the president from suspicions in the Gongadze case, and then defended critics from the opposition, who had launched the "Ukraine without Kuchma" campaign. He also performed a duet with Russian TV host Dmitry Kiselev, who had been invited to ICTV. Yes, that same one!

Passions on TVi channel

However, the result of such zealous defense of the "regime" was the loss of Knyazhytskyi's seat on the National Council for Television and Radio Broadcasting. The fact is that in 1999 and 2000, he was appointed there under a quota from the Verkhovna Rada by the pro-presidential majority, and when in 2002 these quotas were taken over by the opposition led by Yushchenko, Knyazhytskyi was immediately expelled from the National Council. This was a heavy blow for him, since he felt uncomfortable as a simple television presenter, and he lost the 2002 parliamentary elections, trying to be elected in Lviv as a candidate for the Labor Ukraine party (yes, the one he organized). Sergey Tigipko).

Worst of all, by agreeing to work for Kuchma, Knyazhitsky lost the trust (and money) of the Western foundations and "democratic institutions" that had helped him rise in the 90s. The final blow to Knyazhitsky was ICTV's defection to the Orange Revolution. He would have happily rushed to the Maidan podium himself, but many in Yushchenko's circle considered him a "Kuchma hanger-on."

Knyazhitsky was rescued by a financier and politician Vladimir Kosterin, who owned the Mediadom holding company, which included the Tonis television channel. For unknown reasons or at whose request, he appointed Knyazhitsky to lead Mediadom, hoping he would contribute to the development of his media outlet. Knyazhitsky was even given 9% of the holding company's shares—a small stake for a top manager—to stimulate productive work. However, Knyazhitsky's tenure at Mediadom resulted in another high-profile scandal. Immediately after Kosterin decided in the fall of 2007 to thoroughly investigate the 20 million hryvnias he had invested in Tonis, Knyazhitsky, along with Vitaly Portnikov (the editor of the weekly 24, part of the holding company), incited journalists to revolt in protest against the allegedly oppressive censorship. Ultimately, Portnikov and several journalists left the holding company in protest, but Knyazhitsky was once again kicked out, feet first, so to speak. Before his dismissal, Kosterin took away Knyazhitsky's 9% stake in Mediadom as compensation for his lost investments—which later gave Knyazhitsky grounds to claim that his shares had been taken in a "hostile takeover."

Vladimir Kosterin

However, fate continued to favor Knyazhytskyi. In late 2007, following early parliamentary elections, the NU-BSC-BYuT coalition formed, and Hryhoriy Nemyria became deputy prime minister in the new government. He was an old acquaintance of Knyazhytskyi's from the 90s, working for the Renaissance Foundation and other financial projects that had benefited him. Nemyria became an important figure in the BYuT, which was at odds with Yushchenko's inner circle, and so they no longer considered Knyazhytskyi a "Judas" and were happy to welcome all opponents of Viktor Andreevich and his "beloved friends" as allies. Knyazhytskyi immediately approached Nemyria, hoping to secure a position in government. While there was no spare portfolio available for Knyazhytskyi, Nemyria instead helped him secure a position on the new TVi television project. It was founded in 2008 by two fugitive Russian oligarchs: Vladimir Gusinsky and Konstantin Kagalovsky. However, just a few months later, Kagalovsky ditched Gusinsky, issuing additional shares and reducing his stake to 1%. But that was only the beginning of the drama at TVi.

Konstantin Kagalovsky

In 2008, Mykola Knyazhitskyi became the general director of TVi, and he immediately brought in all his good contacts, including Vitaly Portnikov. They made grand plans to expand the project to five more parallel channels, including one called TVi-Europe, jointly with Polish broadcasters (the project was conceived for Euro 2012). But this led to a dispute between TVi and Inter over broadcast frequencies, which resulted in TVi losing—a loss that forever made Knyazhitskyi an implacable opponent of Inter. He still harbours vengeance against them, of course, disguising it as his "political stance as a Ukrainian patriot."

According to former colleagues, in 2010, Knyazhitsky purchased a luxury car for himself at the channel's expense, frequented various salons, and generally lived the lifestyle of a true oligarch, which often led to minor conflicts with TVi owner Kagalovsky. These were minor conflicts, as Knyazhitsky, no fool, understood that a serious confrontation with the owner would lead to his dismissal. So, when in 2011-2012, they tried to wrest Gusinsky's stake back from Kagalovsky, using all available means, including the English High Court, Knyazhitsky sided with him, stating the following:

Nikolai Knyazhitsky: the TV swindler

However, during this process, Knyazhitsky "got carried away" and blurted out that he had actually founded TVi, and that Gusinsky and Kagalovsky had later acquired it. This boast was pointless: the fact is, TVi's ownership structure was extremely complex. The channel itself was owned by Mediainfo LLC, and behind it stood a whole chain of companies registered in offshore jurisdictions and the UK—meaning the channel's creation entailed a foreign economic financial transaction. One of Knyazhitsky's detractors remembered that he didn't have a license for such transactions (he hadn't done business outside of Ukraine) and immediately reported him to the appropriate authorities. But Knyazhitsky had to answer for more than just his own lies: in April 2012, the Tax Service discovered that TVi had a 2,2 million hryvnia arrears, and in July 2012, the tax authorities presented Knyazhitsky with a bill for 3 million hryvnia and warned him of criminal charges.

At first, Knyazhitsky called it "political repression," then a "corporate takeover," but he eventually admitted that his television channel had indeed underpaid taxes—because it had counted the VAT that the state hadn't refunded. Knyazhitsky didn't argue further, but instead appealed to viewers to help the "mouthpiece of freedom of speech" in any way they could. On September 24, 2012, the telethon raised 2,845 million hryvnias, and, according to data, Skelet.Org, Batkivshchyna donated two million to the channel. It was a generous and understandable gift: Knyazhitsky himself ran on the BYuT list in the 2012 elections and truly turned TVi into something of an opposition mouthpiece, focusing on reports about the untold wealth of the "Donetsk people." In December 2012, having become a member of the Rada, Knyazhitsky handed over the position of TVi's general director to Portnikov (Portnikov was at that time being persecuted for "pederasty," with videos of the facts being posted for money. I wonder who organized this?), and he himself became the chairman of its public council.

In the spring of 2013, a new scandal erupted around TVi: after yet another machination involving a change in the composition of its owning companies, American businessman Alexander Altman emerged as the channel's new owner in April. Artem Shevchenko was appointed the channel's new director, and Olga Manko, a Kyiv Regional Council member from the Front for Change (which by then had already formed an alliance with the BYuT), was appointed his deputy. Kagalovsky claimed a corporate raid and filed lawsuits in Ukrainian and British courts. A significant portion of TVi's staff, including journalists Pavlo Sheremet and Mustafa Nayyem, went on strike. Then Mykola Knyazhitsky showed up at the channel's office—as the chairman of its public council and a member of parliament. He began waving documents, insisting that Kagalovsky was not the owner of TVi.

It must be said that this surprised few, since after Knyazhitsky got a seat in the Verkhovna Rada, his attitude toward Kaganovsky changed dramatically: the mask of an obsequious manager fell away, and he began to constantly criticize the channel's owner.

But the story didn't end there! On May 20, 2013, Info 24 LLC (owned by Mykola Knyazhitsky, Vitaly Portnikov, and Artem Shevchenko) and TRS LLC established Concern Media Management, appointing Olga Manko as its director. Vyacheslav Basovich was appointed its financial director, and on July 25, he was appointed the new CEO of TVi, replacing Artem Shevchenko, who had been dismissed for failing to cope with his duties. Thus, the involvement of Knyazhitsky and his new friends in the BYuT and the Front for Change became increasingly apparent in this scam. But a few more weeks passed, and the London court began to rule against Altman, who unexpectedly claimed he had been drawn into the scheme against his will. Immediately after this, Nikolai Knyazhitsky suddenly distanced himself from the scandal and finally declared the events to be a hostile takeover carried out by the structures of the former owner of Inter. Valery Khoroshkovsky and Yanukovych's "family".

Nikolai Knyazhitsky: Take everything and ban it!

In the Rada, Knyazhitsky became friends not only with the Front for Change, but also with Svoboda, which was joining for the first time. Moreover, in December 2012, Knyazhitsky, defending his new friend Oleg Tyagnibok Resisting criticism of the European Union's condemnation of Ukrainian nationalism, he spoke out quite harshly against European parliamentarians. "Some Bulgarian made a decision, and you're just following suit!" he retorted to the European Parliament resolution, adding that Svoboda "is not Nazis, but a political force that wants to build a new Ukraine."

Nikolai Knyazhitsky is almost in Europe.

Knyazhitsky always soaked up the words of his circle like a sponge. And his interactions with Svoboda members were not without consequences: he became imbued with truly Pharion-esque ideas, which he began to actively expound after the victory of the Euromaidan and the People's Front's rise to power—having been elected on its list in the 2014 elections. In parliament, Knyazhitsky was entrusted with the post of Chairman of the Committee on Culture and Spirituality—in vain, as it turned out! And this had nothing to do with the rather murky story of Knyazhitsky's alleged rape of a Cambodian girl, which landed him on Interpol's "Honor Roll" in March 2015.

The case was truly bizarre from every angle. The crime was committed in 2011, but it was only remembered four years later, despite Knyazhitskyi claiming he was in Ukraine at the time, hosting some kind of program. The head of the Ministry of Internal Affairs immediately intervened on behalf of his comrade in the People's Front. Arsen Avakov, who promised to get to the bottom of everything and claimed it was the work of Russian intelligence agencies. Knyazhitsky himself insisted it was Kagalovsky's revenge for the TVi channel, and eventually, they agreed that Kagalovsky was working for the FSB. Soon, all Ukrainian media reported that the Phnom Penh court had fully acquitted Knyazhitsky, dropping all charges against him. It seemed the case was closed, period! However, the source of this information was Knyazhitsky himself, and he never provided any supporting documents. True, his profile was removed from the Interpol website, but he no longer travels to Indochina.

But Deputy Knyazhitsky distinguished himself primarily with his "prohibitive" bills. One of the first to see the light of day, in September 2014, was his bill banning the broadcast in Ukraine of Russian films and TV series produced after January 1, 2014, as well as all others that "promote the activities of law enforcement agencies and the armed forces of the Russian Federation." Even the seemingly harmless and positive series "Soldiers" and "Deadly Force" were banned. It was strange, in fact, that such bills were proposed not by radicals or nationalists, but by a professional journalist with a liberal bent—but that was just the beginning!

In July 2015, Knyazhitskyi's bill No. 2436a proposed amendments to the Law of Ukraine "On Cinematography" that would create a scale for determining whether a film is Ukrainian, European, or from an "aggressor country."

In September 2015, his bill No. 3081, "On State Support for Cinematography," proposed the creation of a Cinematography Institute and a film support fund. However, as critics noted, these structures would simply squander the allocated funds, wasting time in fruitless debates about the fate of Ukrainian cinema. He then proposed a law that would impose an additional fee on the distribution of all foreign films in Ukraine—a fee that would go toward funding Ukrainian cinema (or the Cinematography Institute). Then came the initiative to create a Book Institute—apparently in addition to the Cinematography Institute and the existing Institute of National Memory, in order to create several hundred more jobs for "professional Ukrainians."

In March 2016, Nikolai Knyazhitsky and Dmitry Yarosh proposed draft law No. 4303 to shield Ukrainians not only from contemporary Russian cinema but also from the music, literature, and theater of the "aggressor country." They later supplemented the bill with another proposal: allowing Russian actors to tour in Ukraine only on the condition that they provide a written condemnation of Russian aggression. However, during consideration, the bill failed to garner the required number of votes. Knyazhitsky expressed his indignation at length, calling his colleagues "accomplices of the aggressor," and then threatened to swear off attending sessions until the bill passed its second reading. This sparked a flurry of less-than-flattering reviews—both about the bill and about Knyazhitsky himself. Moreover, he received criticism not only from show business professionals but also from his fellow politicians.

Knyazhitskyi also continues his endless vendetta against the Inter TV channel: considerable information has emerged suggesting that he was behind the repeated incitement of the SBU against it (for allegedly "propaganda of separatism"), as well as possibly organizing the pogroms of the Inter office in February and September 2016. Naturally, he covered this up with feigned patriotism and a passionate effort to protect Ukrainians from "Russian propaganda."

At the same time, Knyazhitskyi doesn't forget his personal interests, which is understandable for a man who declared $720 in cash (and another $300 from his wife) and almost two million hryvnias in annual income. Back in 2014, he insisted that taxation of the lottery and gambling businesses should be transferred to the jurisdiction of his Committee on Culture and Spirituality. He argued that gambling is a form of leisure, and therefore falls under the cultural sphere! But his fellow deputies didn't listen and even laughed, suggesting that the alcohol trade and prostitution should also be transferred to his committee's jurisdiction—after all, they are also means of leisure!

However, Knyazhitsky was completely serious, and it appears his interests in the gambling business were quite specific. This was confirmed several months ago, when he sharply criticized the inclusion of the M.S.L. and Patriot lottery operators on the sanctions list. Knyazhitsky's attack greatly surprised journalists, as it had been proven that these operators, through offshore schemes, belonged to Russian companies, i.e., to the "aggressor country." Why did Knyazhitsky, who so vehemently demands a ban on the distribution of Russian films and the tours of Russian actors, rush to defend Russian lotteries?

Sergey Varis, for Skelet.Org

Subscribe to our channels in Telegram, Facebook, Twitter, VC — Only new faces from the section CRYPT!