For the sake of obtaining military assistance to the Ukrainian authorities were going to give Donald Trump and publicly announce the investigation against him a “political opponents”, found The New York Times. According to the publication, only the complaint of the whistleblower to the head of the White house and the ensuing events had “saved” Vladimir Zelensky from the final decision.
ReutersВ early September, the new Ukrainian President Vladimir Zelensky was faced with a difficult choice. He could “capitulate” to the demands of Donald trump and publicly announce investigations against opponents of the us leader or refuse and lose military aid, which “desperately needed” his country, writes The New York Times.
Two U.S. senators said Zelensky that only a trump could unfreeze this help, and time was running out. If the money, almost $400 million, was not released until the end of the fiscal year occurring on September 30, they could be lost entirely, according to the article. According to the newspaper, Kiev made it a rule not to side with one or another of the American party. But military assistance was vital in the “war against Russian-backed separatist forces” in the East. However, by that time, surrounded by Zelensky was ready to concede. His team was going to go to what seemed inevitable — to make public announcement of the prosecution of opponents of trump, draws the attention of The New York Times. A small part of this “domestic dispute” in Ukraine appeared in the local media and the U.S. Congress, where he launched the impeachment process. But the interview of the edition in Kiev, with government officials, legislators and other persons close to the government Zelensky, revealed new details about how high-ranking Ukrainian officials eventually decided to agree to the request of the President of trump, and “only by luck they never had to perform.” Assistants Zelensky was held that “to comply with the requirements of the” White house, despite the risk of losing the support of both us parties in Congress. About this The New York Times reported a senior fellow with the Foundation for democratic initiatives Petro burkovsky, closely associated with the Ukrainian government. “The stakes were high,” explained the analyst. On the eve of the congressional hearings, the U.S. Ambassador to the EU, Gordon Sandland acknowledged that the trump has retained its military assistance to get Zelensky to make a public statement about the beginning of the two investigations. The first was former U.S. Vice President Joe Biden, who sought the dismissal of the Ukrainian Prosecutor investigating the activities of his son. The second was to prove that Kiev, not Moscow, interfered in the elections for 2016 election, Hillary Clinton, stated in the article. On 25 July in a phone interview Zelensky assured trump that his government will address these issues. These negotiations fell into the whistleblower complaint, which led to the start of the impeachment, the newspaper reminds. But from a political point of view, for trump, it was more profitable Zelensky public statement that would have caused doubts about “the Russian intervention” and Biden, whom the White house “was considered the main threat to his re-election”. This statement is not only “defiled” would be the former Vice-President, but also would undermine the investigation of spectracolor Robert Mueller, shifting part of the blame for the impact on American elections in Kiev, says The New York Times. As a result senior assistant Zelensky Andrey Ermak and the special representative of the USA in Ukraine Kurt Volker began to argue about the wording in the proposed public statement. The American diplomat came to what made a draft for the Ukrainian President, which mentioned the two investigations, emphasizes the publication. Ermak proposed to describe the investigation in a statement in “General terms” in order not to displease Democrats. Later, American diplomats agreed to remove references to the Ukrainian interference in the elections of 2016. Even when Ermak agreed on the wording, it was obvious that is at stake. Although for several months there were rumors about the possible freezing of military assistance, by early August, fears of the Ukrainian authorities confirmed. “Trade” became apparent when in September, the negotiations have joined Sandland. In September, he bluntly explained Zelensky and Yermak that they are unlikely to receive us aid until you make a public announcement about the investigation, according to The New York Times. According to one of interlocutors of the edition, almost all leading Zelensky advisers urged him to make a statement. They agreed that for the sake of military aid and diplomatic support the United States could take a chance and embark on one of the sides in American politics. In the end, submitting the request of the White house, surrounded by Zelensky was planned that the President will make a statement on the investigation on September 13 on CNN. But the unfolding in Washington, the events “saved” the Ukrainian government from taking any final decision, the newspaper notes. Reports on the freezing of military assistance was leaked to the media and aroused the indignation of Congress. Two days before the scheduled performances Zelensky administration trump unblocked help — and the Ukrainian President hastily canceled an interview with CNN. In Kiev are still arguing about what did the Ukrainian President testing or surrendered. “The team Zelensky was ready to provide service in exchange for service. They were willing to do it,” says burkovsky. But, according to ex-Minister of foreign Affairs of Ukraine Pavlo Klimkin, it is impossible to say that in the end could say Zelensky in an interview with CNN. After all, you discussed a lot of versions of the application. In any case, according to the official, the Ukrainian government was well aware of what is at stake — the US aid in exchange for political service, although supporters of the trump insisted that Kiev should not consider the relations between the two countries in this way. “We are not idiots, or at least not all of us are idiots,” — said Klimkin.Source