Proof of collusion at last!

Despite the secondary roles played some bit part actors in the Russiagate drama, the central figure in allegations that Donald Trump colluded with the Russian government to be elected as president of the United States has always been Trumps’ onetime campaign manager Paul Manafort. The recent US Senate report on Russian ‘interference’ in the 2016 presidential election thus started off its analysis with a long exposé of Manafort’s comings and goings.

Simply put, the thesis is as follows: while working in Ukraine as an advisor to ‘pro-Russian’ Ukrainian president Viktor Yanukovich, Manafort was in effect working on behalf of the Russian state via ‘pro-Russian’ Ukrainian oligarchs as well as Russian billionaire Oleg Deripaska (a man with ‘close ties’ to the Kremlin). Also suspicious was Manafort’s close relationship with one Konstantin Kilimnik, whom the US Senate claims is a Russia intelligence agent. All these connections meant that while in Ukraine, Manafort was helping the Russian Federation spread its malign influence. On returning to the USA and joining the Trump campaign, he then continued to fulfill the same role.

The fundamental flaw in this thesis has always been the well-known fact that while advising Yanukovich, Manafort took anything but a ‘pro-Russian’ position, but instead pressed him to sign an association agreement with the European Union (EU). Since gaining independence, Ukraine had avoided being sucked either into the Western or the Russian camp. But the rise of two competing geopolitical projects – the EU and the Russia-backed Eurasian Union – was making this stance increasingly impossible, and Ukraine was being put in a position where it would be forced to choose. This was because the two Unions are incompatible – one can’t be in two customs unions simultaneously, when they levy different tariffs and have different rules. Association with the EU meant an end to the prospect of Ukraine joining the Eurasian Union. It was therefore a goal which was entirely incompatible with Russian interests, which required that Ukraine turn instead towards Eurasia.

Manafort’s position on this matter therefore worked against Russia. Even The Guardian journalist Luke Harding had to concede this in his book Collusion, citing a former Ukrainian official Oleg Voloshin that, ‘Manafort was an advocate for US interests. So much so that the joke inside [Yanunkovich’s] Party of Regions was that he actually worked for the USA.’

If anyone had any doubts about this, they can now put them aside. On Monday, the news agency BNE Intellinews announced that it had received a leak of hundreds of Kilimnik’s emails detailing his relationship with Manafort and Yanukovich. The story they tell is not at all what the US Senate and other proponents of the Trump-Russia collusion fantasy would have you believe. As BNE reports:

Today the Yanukovych narrative is that he was a stool pigeon for Russian President Vladimir Putin from the start, but after winning the presidency he actually worked very hard to take Ukraine into the European family. As bne IntelliNews  has already reported, Manafort’s flight records also show how he crisscrossed Europe in an effort to build support in Brussels for Yanukovych in the run up to the EU Vilnius summit. …

On March 1, his first foreign trip as newly minted president was to the EU capital of Brussels. … The leaked emails show that Manafort influenced Yanukovych’s decision to visit Brussels as first stop, working in concert with his assistant Konstantin Kilimnik … In a memorandum entitled ‘Purpose of President Yanukovych Trip to Brussels,’ Manafort argued that the decision to visit Brussels first would underscore Yanukovych’s mission to “bring European values to Ukraine,” and kick start negotiations on the Association Agreement.

The memorandum on the Brussels visit was the first of many from Manafort and Kilimnik to Yanukovych, in which they pushed Yanukovych to signal a clear pro-EU line and to carry out reforms to back this up. …

To handle Yanukovych’s off-message antics, Manafort and Kilimnik created a back channel to Yanukovych for Western politicians – in particular those known to appreciate Ukraine’s geopolitical significance vis-à-vis Russia. In Europe, these were Sweden’s then foreign minister Carl Bildt, Poland’s then foreign minister Radosław Sikorski and European Commissioner for Enlargement Stefan Fule, and in the US, Vice President Joe Biden.

“We need to launch a ‘Friends of Ukraine’ programme to help us use informal channels in talks on the free trade zone and modernisation of the gas transport system,” Manafort and Kilimnik wrote to Yanukovych in September 2010. “Carl Bildt is the foundation of this informal group and has sufficient weight with his colleagues in questions connected to Ukraine and the Eastern Partnership. (…) but he needs to be able to say that he has a direct channel to the President, and he knows that President Yanukovych remains committed to European integration.”

Beyond this, the emails show that Manafort and Kilimnik also tried hard to arrange a meeting between Yanukovich and US President Barack Obama, and urged Yanukovich to show leniency to former Prime Minister Yuliia Timoshenko (who was imprisoned for fraud).

It is noticeable that the members of the ‘back channel’ Manafort and Kilimnik created to lobby on behalf of Ukraine in the EU included some of the most notably Russophobic European politicians of the time, such as Carl Bildt and Radek Sikorski. Moreover, nowhere in any of what they did can you find anything that could remotely be described as ‘pro-Russian’. Indeed, the opposite is true. As previously noted, Ukraine’s bid for an EU agreement directly challenged a key Russian interest – the expansion of the Eurasian Union to include Ukraine. Manafort and Kilimnik were therefore very much working against Russia, not for it.

The idea, therefore, that Paul Manafort was an agent of influence for the Russian government flies against everything we know about what he actually did. As for Kilimnik, maybe he is a Russian intelligence agent – I’m not in a position to say. But if he is, he’s a very weird one, who spent years actively pushing the Ukrainian government to pursue a policy which directly contradicted Russian interests.

None of this, needless to say, appears in the US Senate report. Instead, the report chooses to focus on the apparently shocking revelation that Manafort shared Trump campaign polling data with Kilimnik, as if this sharing of private information was in some ways a massive threat to national security and proof that Manafort was working for the Russians. The fact that both Manafort and Kilimnik spent years doing their damnedest to undermine Russia is simply ignored. Go figure!

20 thoughts on “Proof of collusion at last!”

  1. So what was it, then? Suicide attempt? Or Xi? Erdogan? Duterte? Rutte? Joe Biden? Jimmy Carter?

    Sorry, but I got to say that the GRU left its fingerprints again here, unless the Germans are just lying (if so, please explain why). Unless you can tell me where Novichok is being sold; if it is available for a price, that is a bit disturbing.
    Whether Putin signed off on it is something I cannot say; I think that (elements in) Russian MI is/are going rogue, not sure why. What it likely does show, again, is that Putin is not the all-powerful, omniscient webmaster the Western media depict him as being.

    Like

      1. you are getting closer and closer to Lytt’s style of communication. Impatient?

        Otherwise, I am not aware that the average German is very fond or familiar with of the matter of Britain. You’ve got Alsatian Gottfried von Straßburg (Strasbourg) in mind? Potion – poison?

        Like

      1. P.S. – according to a different version (a reputable but top-secret source): This was not supposed to be a poisoning of Navaly, but actually a Love Potion.
        Like Tristan and Isolde. (Germans are really into that sort of thing.)

        Like

      2. Did you see the CCTV of Salisbury? All made up by MI 5 and MI 6, I guess…
        I am not saying–see above–that Putin sits in the Kremlin plotting these people’s demise, but as head of government he surely could try to keep his subjects better under control rather than letting them go on a rampage.
        Perhaps I should give Russian authorities credit for at least ensuring that Navalny was not attacked outside the RF and allowing him to be treated in Germany.
        Even if Navalny would be a British agent, like Beria was, too (he confessed), which you peeps seem to imply, why deal with him in such fashion? There surely are other ways to rid yourself of such nuisances! Mogilevich and his ilk, then? But why? To ingratiate themselves with VVP?

        Like

    1. This is addressed to Kees,

      I bet you still believe in weapons of mass destruction and Colin Powell and his test tube at the UN.

      Governments tell lies – you just prefer to believe yours doesn’t!!! And only Russians tell lies.

      Like

      1. Ha, ha. Yes, and I believe in Cinderella; and yes, that Stalin was a saint, as was Nixon.
        And my house is wallpapered with Colin Powell’s image.
        I just do not understand that most of you commentators have no sense of nuance.
        Is this what reading Wikipedia does to you?

        Like

  2. Russiagate despite being lies from start to finish- has been so successful propaganda.

    (Aaron Mate has covered this topic so extensively. )

    Hillary Clinton and her team started it to explain her loss to the TV host Donal Trump and it has continued to be used as a tool to control him and malign Russia.

    The media Rachel Maddow ,
    the democrats with some Republicans,
    think tanks – Christopher Steel.
    FBI – and people like Brennan who retired Susan Rice

    All colluding together to spin the narrative of Russian interference (and Kees thinks governments don’t lie. )

    Like

  3. I do think Angela Merkel has a hole lot more credibility than Putin, Trump, Bojo, GWB, Macron, Rutte, Berlusconi, Lukashenko, Xi, Abe, Duterte, Sisi, and so on.
    No, she is not a saint, and I am not even of her political persuasion (one-time Canadian New Democratic Party member here, which I only left because I had to move elsewhere), but I do think she has shown a measured response to almost every crisis she has faced; if she states something publicly, I am inclined to take it seriously, unlike the gibberish coming out of Peskov, McEnany, or Cummings.
    Nuance, people, rather than mudslinging. This stuff about Germans lying because of Hitler is nauseating, by the way, and indeed just the mirror of saying Russians are lying because of Stalin. All of you should study harder and broaden your horizons. I am sure U of Ottawa will be happy to have you.

    Like

  4. “Ukraine was being put in a position where it would be forced to choose. This was because the two Unions are incompatible – one can’t be in two customs unions simultaneously, when they levy different tariffs and have different rules”

    One should also mention the cost of Ukraine joining the EU vs. joining with Russia.:

    “Others say Yanukovich’s desire to forge closer links with the EU was genuine, but that he became dismayed when he felt the EU failed to acknowledge the scale of the financial difficulties he would face if he chose Brussels over Moscow.

    Yanukovich estimated that he needed $160 billion over three years to make up for the trade Ukraine stood to lose with Russia, and to help cushion the pain from reforms the EU was demanding. The EU refused to give such a sum, which it said was exaggerated and unjustified.

    The EU offered 610 million euros ($839 million) immediately. EU officials said increased trade, combined with various aid and financing programs, might go some way to providing Kiev with the investment it needed.”

    Less than three months later Yanukovich spurned the EU, embraced Russian President Vladimir Putin and struck a deal on December 17 for a bailout of his country. Russia will invest $15 billion in Ukraine’s government debt and reduce by about a third the price that Naftogaz, Ukraine’s national energy company, pays for Russian gas.”
    https://www.reuters.com/article/us-ukraine-russia-deal-special-report-idUSBRE9BI0DZ20131219

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s