Who will dare to go there after Viktor Pinchuk’s “compromises”?

Following the Ukrainian oligarch Viktor Pinchuk’s infamous WSJ piece, where he proposed to exchange a bit of Ukraine’s territory for a dubious peace, our political class, journalists, and public have had to reveal where they stand. And while the public has been clearly negative in its response to such ideas, politicians and journalists have split between those condemning Pinchuk and those taking a neutral stance. However, staying silent is not an option, because the Davos forum is scheduled to start on January 17, and Pinchuk has long organized the so-called “Ukrainian lunch” there.

That event is seemingly useful as a means of positioning Ukraine in the international arena. In fact, though, Pinchuk’s meeting in Davos has become, just like the Yalta forum, a platform for whitewashing his father-in-law Leonid Kuchma. The Day has repeatedly stated that Pinchuk’s projects are totally not philanthropic in nature. The first to boycott Pinchuk’s events was the public figure and surviving victim in the Gongadze-Podolsky case Oleksii Podolsky. Hanna Hopko, now an MP, resolutely opposed participation in the Davos event back in 2014. She called on people to boycott this event now as well.

Following Pinchuk’s WSJ article, members of the Ukrainian political class need to decide where they stand, since taking part in Pinchuk’s lunch will imply support for his position. However, some politicians said they would travel to Davos, but only to convey the opposite view. In particular, Deputy Prime Minister Ivanna Klympush-Tsintsadze posted on Facebook: “In the light of the discussions that have developed since late last year, it is my duty to speak loudly there [in Davos. – Ed.] and make the stance held by the Ukrainian public known worldwide.” What do journalists and politicians think about it?

“PINCHUK HAS NO BUSINESS MEDDLING IN POLITICS”

Oleksii MUSHAK, MP, the Petro Poroshenko Bloc’s faction:

“I have met Pinchuk on a few occasions and can say that he is not inclined to voice his own political position. I am even surprised at his recent attempt to voice this position, which has turned out so badly to boot. If someone still goes to Davos after Pinchuk’s WSJ article, they should convey there a common clear position, one different from Pinchuk’s. A big problem plaguing Ukraine is a lack of competition. There is Pinchuk’s platform, and that is all. This actually leads to monopolization of position. If besides Pinchuk we had, for instance, Ihor Kolomoiskyi or someone else setting up such a platform, it would have expanded people’s access to the public and led to diversification of opinion transmission channels. Pinchuk himself should be told that it is good for him to have an opinion of his own on foreign policy of Ukraine, but it is just his personal opinion and not the nation’s position. I think he should know his place and thank the fate for the period when his father-in-law was president of Ukraine, which gave him the opportunity to privatize Ukrainian companies on the cheap and strengthen his positions. Given these facts, he has no business meddling in politics. At one time, there was the so-called ‘Morel plan.’ Where is it now? I think that the ‘Pinchuk plan’ will be similarly forgotten. I do not believe in the strategies of selling out the national interests and surrendering. These ideas will not take root.”

“ANYONE ATTENDING PINCHUK’S MEETINGS WILL TACITLY ENDORSE HIS PROPOSAL”

Oleksii SKRYPNYK, MP, the Samopomich faction:

“Pinchuk’s contribution was intentionally published on the eve of the Davos forum. I refused to make a trip to Davos because I do not like to be treated as an object of someone else’s interests. Pinchuk will use the Davos event to promote ideas that were outlined in his contribution. Essentially, it calls for gradually surrendering Ukraine’s positions. I do not think the format of these meetings will provide an opportunity to stand up and leave to show one’s disagreement with such a scenario. This means that anyone attending Pinchuk’s meetings will tacitly endorse his proposal.

“I would like to see other oligarchs creating such platforms, as it would allow us to have an alternative discussion up and running. Certainly, oligarchs will still use them to their advantage, but we need polyphony of positions in such circumstances. As of now, though, Pinchuk is gradually forcing politicians to agree with his vision. He watches how the public responds, whether it is ready to stay passive, and he watches politicians, including MPs, as well. And I can tell you that we have about 60 MPs now who stick to their own independent position. We can rely on them.”

“MANY POLITICIANS AND JOURNALISTS ARE LINKED TO PINCHUK”

Serhii SHCHERBYNA, journalist:

“In my opinion, Pinchuk’s WSJ article pursued his own interests. Since he openly supported Hillary Clinton’s Democratic Party in the US and donated money to the Clintons’ family foundation, it is clear that after Donald Trump’s victory, Pinchuk may well get in trouble with the new US administration. First of all, it concerns his pipe-making business. Therefore, I believe that Pinchuk was trying to court favor with the new team in Washington and the Russians.

“Pinchuk is not an elected official. He is a Ukrainian oligarch. By definition, oligarchs only care about what benefits them. It is naive to think that Pinchuk will spend money to support democracy. The Davos forum is a personal communication tool for Pinchuk. Of course, many politicians and journalists are linked to him. They belong to a milieu where Pinchuk’s opinion is authoritative. Using relevant media and public offices, they will support his position.

“As for me personally, I certainly will not attend that forum. I stress it again: the Davos forum is not a philanthropic endeavor for Pinchuk, but rather a means of pursuing his personal interests.”

“NO SELF-RESPECTING POLITICIAN SHOULD ATTEND PINCHUK’S DAVOS EVENT”

Ayder MUZHDABAEV, journalist:

“I am convinced that no self-respecting politician should attend Pinchuk’s Davos event, because Pinchuk’s proposal which he submitted to the Ukrainians through the WSJ on New Year’s Eve is just indecent. As long as the proposal is not publicly disavowed, Pinchuk has to be avoided by the respectable public, not to mention the Ukrainian political class, unless, of course, we deal with the Opposition Bloc politicians who employ the same rhetoric. They may do it, but not anyone else.

“I am surprised less at the fact that Pinchuk submitted this indecent proposal to the Ukrainians and more at the fact that this proposal has got a rather weak response from public politicians. The silence of some politicians has made me think that they get helped by Pinchuk behind the scenes. The silence of politicians in the Pinchuk case speaks more eloquently than the words of Pinchuk himself. These words, meanwhile, were nothing new for me, except that they were uttered by a man who had been silent for three years following the annexation of Crimea. His proposal is to sell the mother and the child alike. The child in this case is Crimea, and the mother is Ukraine. I say this without emotion, because it is just the way things are. Moreover, Pinchuk’s contribution did not just repeat in a bit more courteous form the rhetoric of the Opposition Bloc, but repeated word for word the rhetoric of the Kremlin propaganda itself. This is just what the Kremlin propagandist Vladimir Solovyov has called for. Things suggested by Pinchuk are the Kremlin’s dream come true.

“I do not know what led him to do it, but him being an incredibly avaricious individual, it is unlikely he entered public politics out of some romantic interest. However, that is for him to deal with. His demarche is not that important, while the response to it is. A society’s health is assessed not by its flaws, but by its response to them. Admittedly, the public response to the WSJ contribution was unambiguous, as people anathematized Pinchuk. However, the political response was diametrically opposed to that of the public. This suggests that the political class is removed even further from the citizenry than we thought. The political class’s response, even when they disagreed with Pinchuk’s ideas, was lacking in sincere indignation. That is, they treat these ideas as one of the possible scenarios, although still unacceptable as of now. The normal response ought to be tough and unanimous. As one journalist told me, Pinchuk is now a persona non grata for her. This ought to be the position taken by the Ukrainian political class as well, living as they are in a country at war with the aggressor, when they got a proposal to give up parts of its territory. What we are seeing instead is a courteous salon conversation, running like that: ‘You are mistaken, Sir’ – ‘Pardon me, Sir.’ This is not how true statesmen do things. Should we see prominent Ukrainian politicians consuming the Pinchuk-bought lunch in Davos, it would mean, firstly, that he helps many of them, and secondly, that the political elite fails to see the boundaries of decency and have lost their links with the public. We will be able to see all such politicians in Davos.”

“POLITICIANS’ DAVOS PARTICIPATION PROVIDES A KIND OF ENDORSEMENT FOR PINCHUK’S ACTIVITIES AND STATEMENTS”

Viktoria VOITSYTSKA, MP, the Samopomich faction:

“I refused to participate in Pinchuk’s Davos event. Politicians’ participation in such an event provides a kind of endorsement for Pinchuk’s activities and statements, for he is the event’s organizer. I totally disagree with the plan of surrender proposed by Pinchuk in his contribution. Therefore, I see attending this event as unacceptable. It is believed by some that this forum can be used to make the opposite view known. I was there once and know that thinking so is naive. After all, the list of the event’s panelists and those allowed to ask questions is compiled in advance.

“Indeed, we do have a shortage of similar alternative platforms. We must invite people from around the world who are opinion-makers and would regularly submit contributions dealing with Ukraine, and not only in the WSJ. At the moment, everything is focused on the Davos forum and the Yalta European Strategy, which is another of Pinchuk’s projects. The government expressed its position on Pinchuk’s views through Kostiantyn Yelisieiev, but it is very telling that the government does not act proactively, but only tries to fight fires resulting from opposing positions being publicized. Our government’s communication with the outside world is quite ineffective, even though we need it to broadcast the official position on the war in the Donbas, Crimea annexation, sanctions against Russia, and our reforms. Pinchuk’s pronouncements are really perceived by a lot of people in the West, if not as the official position of Ukraine, then at least as the position of someone who has a serious influence in this country. The government’s position, unfortunately, is not proactive.”