A Brief Primer on the History of Ukrainian Corruption ⋆ Politicrossing
Connect with us

News

A Brief Primer on the History of Ukrainian Corruption

Embezzlement, bribery, political favoritism and nepotism… to list a few.

Published

on

The issue of corruption in the Ukrainian government has been a longstanding problem that has plagued the country since its independence in 1991. From embezzlement and bribery to political favoritism and nepotism, corruption has been a defining feature of the country’s political landscape. American conservatives have been particularly vocal in their condemnation of corruption in Ukraine, with many arguing that it undermines the country’s democratic institutions and hampers economic development. In this article, we will examine the history of corruption in the Ukrainian government from an American conservative perspective, highlighting some of the most prominent voices on this issue.

Interestingly, one of the most outspoken critics of corruption in Ukraine has been Senator John McCain. In a 2014 speech on the Senate floor, he condemned what he called “the pervasive corruption that has plagued Ukraine for decades.” He went on to argue that corruption was not only a moral failing but also a strategic one, as it weakened the country’s ability to defend itself against external threats. “Corruption in Ukraine has undermined its democracy, its economy, and its national security,” he said. “It has allowed Russia to exert undue influence over the country, and it has siphoned off resources that could have been used for the benefit of the Ukrainian people.”

McCain’s concerns were echoed by many other American conservatives, including former House Speaker Newt Gingrich. In a 2019 op-ed for Fox News, he wrote that corruption was one of the biggest obstacles to Ukraine’s success. “Ukraine has enormous potential, but corruption has stunted its growth and left its people impoverished,” he argued. “The Ukrainian government must take bold steps to root out corruption and create a level playing field for all citizens.”

Many historians and political pundits have pointed to the role of oligarchs in perpetuating corruption in Ukraine. Oligarchs are wealthy individuals who have amassed vast fortunes through a combination of business savvy, political connections, and sometimes illegal means. They wield enormous influence over the country’s political and economic systems, often using their wealth to buy off politicians and control the media.

One of the most infamous oligarchs in Ukraine is Ihor Kolomoisky, who Forbes estimates to be worth over $1.2 billion. Kolomoisky made his fortune in the banking and energy sectors, but he has been accused of using his wealth to control the media and bribe politicians. In a 2019 interview with Bloomberg, he acknowledged that corruption was a problem in Ukraine but argued that it was not unique to the country. “There’s corruption in every country, it’s a matter of degree,” he said. “The problem is when it gets too big, too open, too public, too brazen.”

Many American conservatives would argue that corruption in Ukraine has indeed reached a level of brazenness that is unacceptable. They point to cases like the one involving former Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko, who has been accused of embezzlement and other corrupt practices. In a 2019 op-ed for The National Interest, conservative commentator Doug Bandow argued that Poroshenko’s corrupt activities had undermined the country’s democratic institutions. “Ukraine cannot become a successful democracy until it deals with its corruption problem,” he wrote.

Despite the widespread recognition of corruption as a problem in Ukraine, progress in combating it has been slow. The country’s anti-corruption agencies have been hampered by political interference, and many politicians and officials have been reluctant to give up their ill-gotten gains. In a 2018 op-ed for The Washington Times, conservative commentator David A. Keene argued that the United States needed to do more to support anti-corruption efforts in Ukraine. “We must help the Ukrainian government build the institutions it needs to combat corruption and protect the rule of law,” he wrote. “Only then can Ukraine achieve its fullpotential as a democratic and prosperous nation.”

One of the most significant steps that the United States has taken to combat corruption in Ukraine was the establishment of the Ukraine Security Assistance Initiative (USAI) in 2016. This program provides financial and technical assistance to the country’s law enforcement agencies and anti-corruption bodies. However, the USAI has been a source of controversy, with some conservatives arguing that the funds have been misused or misappropriated by Ukrainian officials.

Despite these challenges, many American conservatives remain committed to supporting Ukraine in its fight against corruption. They see corruption as a threat not only to Ukraine’s democratic institutions but also to the broader geopolitical stability of the region. In a 2019 op-ed for The Washington Examiner, conservative commentator Tom Rogan argued that the United States needed to remain engaged in Ukraine to counter Russian influence and support democratic reform. “Ukraine is a frontline state in the struggle for freedom and democracy in Europe,” he wrote. “It’s vital that we continue to stand with the Ukrainian people in their fight against corruption and for a better future.”

Corruption in the Ukrainian government has been a persistent problem that has undermined the country’s democratic institutions and economic development. From the perspective of American conservatives, corruption in Ukraine poses a strategic threat to regional stability and represents a moral failing on the part of the country’s leaders.

The Bidens and Ukraine:

The Biden corruption allegations in Ukraine have been a source of controversy since the 2020 election cycle. The allegations stem from Joe Biden’s role as Vice President during the Obama administration and his involvement in Ukrainian politics. Specifically, conservatives have accused Biden of using his position to influence Ukrainian policy in a way that benefited his son Hunter’s business interests.

The allegations center on Hunter Biden’s position on the board of Burisma Holdings, a Ukrainian energy company. Hunter joined the board in 2014, shortly after Joe Biden was named the Obama administration’s point person on Ukraine. Biden pressured the Ukrainian government to fire its top prosecutor, who was investigating corruption allegations against Burisma, in order to protect his son’s business interests.

Conservatives have pointed to several pieces of evidence to support their allegations. One of the most prominent is a video clip of Joe Biden bragging about pressuring the Ukrainian government to fire the prosecutor during a speech at a 2018 event. In the clip, Biden describes how he threatened to withhold $1 billion in U.S. loan guarantees unless the prosecutor was fired. This constitutes an abuse of power, as Biden was using his position as Vice President to further his personal interests.

Conservative pundits and politicians have also pointed to Hunter Biden’s lack of experience in the energy sector as evidence of corruption. They argue that his position on the board of Burisma was a result of his family connections, rather than his qualifications for the job. In a 2019 op-ed for Fox News, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich wrote that “Hunter Biden’s employment at Burisma reeks of nepotism and corruption.”

The allegations against Joe and Hunter Biden have been a frequent topic of discussion among American conservatives, particularly in the context of the 2020 election. Some conservatives have accused the media of ignoring the story, arguing that if the allegations had been made against a Republican politician, they would have received much more attention. In a 2020 op-ed for The Washington Times, conservative commentator Tammy Bruce wrote that “the media’s silence on the Biden family’s corrupt activities is deafening.”

We'd love to hear your thoughts about this article. Please take a minute to share them in the comment section by clicking here. Or carry the conversation over on your favorite social network by clicking one of the share buttons below.



 
 
 

Join the conversation!

We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, profanity, vulgarity, doxing, or discourteous behavior. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain fruitful conversation.



Elections

Will Democrats Do What They Must?

Published

on

On a warm August evening in 1974, President Richard M. Nixon said from the Oval Office that he was resigning, becoming the first president to do so. He confessed that he no longer had “a strong enough political base in the Congress” to finish his term.

Sen. Barry Goldwater, Ariz., the 1964 GOP presidential nominee, was a respected conservative leader in a Senate whose Republican ranks were less conservative than now. In a May 1973 interview with Time magazine, Goldwater had given an early warning, “If it can be proved that he (Nixon) lied, resignation would have to be considered. It would be quick. Everything would be over, ended. It wouldn’t drag out like impeachment.”

At a regular Senate Republican Conference lunch on august 6 of 1974, Goldwater had fumed: “There are only so many lies you can take, and now there has been one too many. Nixon should get his ass out of the White House today!” When he went to see President Nixon, Goldwater confided, “There’s not more than 15 senators for you.” After that showdown, the curtain on President Nixon’s presidency came down three days later.

In this challenging time in our history when President Biden’s competency is under serious question, will Democrat leaders have the courage to do the same? With this report, more Democrats and Independents will be less inclined to vote for Biden. That may very well impact the future of many Democrat politicians whose own election could be impacted if their voting base stays home. After his Wednesday night address, the evidence that Biden is in trouble is plainly obvious.

President Biden’s poll numbers are now at an all time low. The shocking Department of Justice Special Counsel Robert Hur report suggests that Biden should not be indicted because Biden is “a sympathetic, well-meaning, elderly man with a poor memory” that a jury would be unlikely to convict. The Special Counsel also noted that Biden “willfully retained and disclosed classified materials after his vice presidency when he was a private citizen;” he noted that such actions “present serious risks to national security.” It is clearly a risk for Biden to remain in office.

When President Biden addressed the country after the report was disclosed, he asserted that his memory was fine, and the report confirms that he was not indicted and did nothing wrong. His comments to the press questions were combative and defensive. He took no personal responsibility, blaming his staff for the faulty storage of classified documents. His message was strident and clear-Trump is guilty, and I did nothing wrong.

If he is not competent to stand trial for his actions, how can he be confident enough to remain president? It’s time for a private confrontation by Democrat leadership. If Biden does not listen, it is time to exercise the 25th amendment option to remove him from office.

It is not easy to use that 25th Amendment option. It is even more difficult with only 9 months before a critical national election. Waiting until the Democrat Convention in August leaves little time to right the ship and promote a replacement candidate.

Democrats, do your job to clean out your own house. President Biden is not competent to meet the challenges of our time. Do it now or pay the price in November. As Republicans, we hope you let Biden remain your candidate, but that is selfish. President Biden is our current leader and his decisions impact all of us and a world in turmoil. This isn’t about politics. We can’t afford even eleven more months of a mentally incompetent President.

Continue Reading

News

Claudine Gay, Ex-Harvard President, Will Strike it Rich in 2024

Gay will be a hot ticket at conferences leading up to the 2024 election.

Published

on

If she were a straight white male, Claudine Gay’s career in academia would have been completely finished weeks ago. Along with the presidents of MIT and (then) University of Pennsylvania, as a result of Gay’s anti-Semitism and her disastrous testimony before Congress in December, much of the country was in an uproar.

Pretzel Logic

Days later, when it was discovered that Gay had plagiarized or inappropriately paraphrased and lifted passages from other authors, from a variety of academic works, that would have sealed her fate. In this utterly illogical age of unreason, just the opposite of what ought to happen actually did happen. The Harvard bigwigs backed her!

Gay punched all of the intersectionality buttons: Black, gay, female, and what else you want to throw into the mix. So was she not terminated from her widely visible, high-profile position. Luckily for Harvard, she quit as president! She retains her cushy post as professor, however, at $900,000 per year. And more amazing good fortune likely is in store for her. She may well reap an income bonanza unlike most other college presidents in the U.S. or around the world.

You have to understand that Gay is actually a hero to many factions on the Left. Let’s see … she stood up to the man! She let Congress have it with both barrels. She defended her academic turf. She stuck with what she believes in. She didn’t kowtow to the U.S. pro-Israeli faction. She spoke her truth! My goodness, what a leader, what a noble soul, what a speaker we might have at our convention!

Media Darlings

A variety of questionable figures on the Left have become darlings to groups who lap up their every word. If you think this won’t happen with Ms. Gay, think again.

Unbelievably, the parents of Trayvon Martin became media darlings. Martin was a violent teenager who punched a bus driver in the face, stole money and other items at school, and was suspended from school at the time of his death. He met his fate while pounding George Zimmerman’s head into a sidewalk.

Democratic groups have celebrated the Martins ever since then. Their public appearances were considered to be special. In another minute, with a cracked skull, Zimmerman might have bled out and died, making Martin a murderer.

Honored at the DNC Convention

The parents of Michael Brown also made the rounds and were accorded celebrity status. The super-sized 18-year-old from Ferguson, MO had stolen cigars and choked a small Asian convenience store clerk just 10 minutes before he had tried to wrestle a gun away from an officer sitting in his police car.

Had Brown, whose fingerprints were all over the officer’s car, successfully taken the officer’s gun, Brown, too, might have been a murderer. At the Democrat National Convention attendees couldn’t get enough of Brown’s noble mother. Sadly, the city of Ferguson, MO, paid Brown’s family an extorted $1.5 million, largely due to fears of more mob violence.

If parents who’ve raised career criminals are celebrated, what are Claudine Gay’s prospects?

Prospects Aplenty

Presumably, she has no violent incidents in her past. Prior to her resignation as Harvard president she may have already, privately signed on with one of the top speaker’s bureaus from either in Boston, New York, or Washington, D.C. Bureaus value having partisan speakers in their lineup when they can book such individuals at large conferences and conventions. Gay will be a hot ticket leading up to the 2024 election.

She will be featured as the head liner at many conferences.

How much can she glean from such appearances? The floor is 20 to 40 thousand per outing, but 50 to 75 thousand is within reach, of which the bureau takes 25%. At that level of earnings for a speech, she could easily exceed another $900,000 by the end of the year. Will you earn $1,800,000 in the next ten years?

Knowing No Bounds

As one audience after another offers her special treatment, her already outsized, over-privileged ego will know no bounds, and all of her past sins will be long forgotten. The groups to whom she speaks will consider themselves to have done their part in promoting diversity, equity, and inclusion. Gay’s intersectionality seals the deal, so by any measure, it’s a win-win-win (bureau, speaker, and audience) for Leftists.

To those on the Right, such developments are sickening, but we’ve come to accept that this is the world as it is currently. With all the devastation and destruction promulgated by the Biden administration, we have much bigger fish to fry.

– – – – –

 

Continue Reading

 

Our Newsletter

Become a Politicrossing insider: Sign up for our free email newsletter, and we'll make sure to keep you in the loop.

Sites We Like

Jesus, Master of Influence

Chris Widener, speaker and best selling author of The Art of Influence, teaches that Jesus is the master of influence. In sixteen sessions you will learn from one of the most influential communicators how the life and teachings of Jesus Christ is the best model for how to become an effective influence that can change people’s thoughts, beliefs and actions.

LEARN MORE

Our Newsletter

Become a PolitiCrossing insider: Sign up for our free email newsletter, and we'll make sure to keep you in the loop.

Trending