Gleb PAVLOVSKY, “The first and second cassette scandals stem from the same technological source”
“To what extent are true the accusations against Moscow political technologists of organizing the second cassette scandal?”
“If we stick to the facts and brush emotions aside, I would agree with Mr. Omelchenko that both cassettes, the last year’s Melnychenko tape and the present one, stem from the same technological source. It is extremely unlikely that this technological source should be in Moscow, and, as far as I understand, this version is being rejected with respect to Melnychenko. Obviously, it is technically impossible for a foreigner to breach the law, especially in the sphere of communications, on such a wide scale in a country with such a powerful, to put it mildly, administrative resource as Ukraine. This can be done only by one local force or another.”
“Can you suggest what kind of a force it might be?”
“I think that in all intricate cases one must follow the line suggested by detective story characters. First of all, one must examine the most plausible versions. Minister of Internal Affairs Smirnov’s version is the first to be checked, for it seems to be the most plausible. As he put it, it boils down to the formula that you wrote it yourselves. This hypothesis should be examined first for the simple reason that it is common practice to screen first the person caught red-handed even if he enjoys a good reputation. What drew my attention is the strange fact that the formal victims of the breach, who are entitled to denounce any unauthorized tapping of their phone calls, were the first to admit that the tape was authentic. This is very strange even from the legal point of view. Actually, this is not mudslinging, as everybody claims, but a routine loudmouthed conversation, quite a common occurrence among politicians, especially members of parliament. So it is necessary to find out whether the disclosed cassette is the interception of information or the deliberate exposure of a conversation.”
“If this is so, what could be the ultimate goal of such an action?”
“As it is now difficult to corroborate any versions, there will be conjectures. At first glance, this is a piece of fake compromising material. This fake, as I see it, tips SDPU(o) as the one who did the recording. The tip was too clumsy, for it suggests the motive of revenge for dismissal engineered by the tape speakers, which they never tried to hide. At the same time, it is a demonstration of loyalty to certain official circles. Although this is also conjecture, I would not like to fully agree with Mr. Omelchenko that both tapes were recorded by the same individual. The first cassette scandal was a serious and large-scale provocation aimed at undermining Ukrainian statehood. I prefer to think that in this case there was a different perpetrator. Yet, the hypothesis that the second tape was to become an alibi for the author of the first one should be examined. The logic is clear: if I am being eavesdropped, this means it was not I who did the eavesdropping in the first case. This job is an attempt to establish an artificial alibi.”
“In other words, you do not rule out that the participants of the second conversation were just trying to allay any suspicions of complicity in the first cassette scandal?”
“Well, I would agree to that, remembering that this is just a hypothesis, but I would suggest distinguishing between the perpetrators and the masterminds. As a rule, when such serious criminal offenses as the murder of journalist Gongadze are committed, the perpetrator loses. He thinks he is playing to his own scenario, but in reality he is involved in a more serious game. One believes he is publishing material he managed to get hold of, while another believes he has successfully planted this material and created a false image in the public eye. But it often turns out that the scandal features a third party for whom both the fist and the second are just pawns. This happened in the Gongadze story. The one who bugged the president is the prime suspect in the journalist’s murder because he could have been the first to construe the president’s impolite remark as a signal for his own actions. An analyst listens to the tape, marks the important points, and in fact makes the person a target. Then the killers put the journalist to death for reasons of their own. As a result, the corpse becomes linked to the tape. This creates a mythical situation whereby the president allegedly gives the order to kill. An otherwise harmless utterance is used by anti-presidential forces as a pretext for murdering the journalist. Such things require very well thought out scenarios. I am prepared to partially agree with the Rukh leader Pylypchuk when he says the tape can suggest foreign interference in the internal affairs of your state. Obviously, this is an attempt to shift the blame from the West to the East to Russia. Hence we hear the utterly preposterous claim that the ‘Muscovites’ are allegedly standing behind this. These people could be anybody but ‘Muscovites’.”
“Who at the moment is gaining and who’s losing from the second cassette scandal?”
“Undoubtedly, the first victim is public trust in the election process. This helps make voters cynical about democratic institutions. In principle, this a case of the so-called white tails scenario, when all are stained, one way or another, but I am in while tails. One should search for those who constructed the campaign on the principle of white garments. The main result of this campaign is that all ordinary politicians and political party leaders remain on the receiving end, with the voter harboring suspicion about everything. In my opinion, this game is aimed at discrediting the election campaign in order to make it easier for somebody to make his way up. It is so far unclear who stands to gain because it looks like all politicians eavesdrop on and curse at one another. It is very difficult for me, a non-participant in the Ukrainian political process, to assess who does and who does not stand to gain from this.”
“Why is it precisely Vadym Rabinovych who hurled accusations at you and Marat Gelman, your team’s member?”
“I don’t know Mr. Rabinovych very well. He is something like Berezovsky in Russia. I find it difficult to see his motives. Mr. Gelman is essentially a self-sufficient person. It is only secondarily that he is a Foundation co-owner, but, primarily, he is manager of the Gelman Gallery, a thriving and quite professional PR venture. As far as I know, he works in Kyiv in the latter capacity. But it is better to ask Mr. Gelman himself what he is doing in Ukraine. I know that Marat Gelman has nothing to do with this scandal. He is acting like a virtual bargaining chip. He is member of my team, as well as I am member of his team: we’re friends.”
“How real is the danger of new cases of mudslinging during the election campaign?”
“It’s real. I can only wish Ukraine will overcome this infantile political disease as soon as possible, putting aside its carriers, those spreading the infection.”
“In what way do you personally and your foundation participate in Ukrainian politics?”
“I play no role in Ukrainian politics. Even if my interests are connected with politics, it is Russian politics. I cooperate with various Ukrainian and Russian politicians within the framework of the Year of Ukraine in Russia, and I do this outside the election campaign.”
