Personnel leapfrog in the American administration continues. Following the resignation of Trump's national security assistant, Bolton, the president’s special envoy for Ukraine, Kurt Walker, announced his retirement (so far, however, in private conversations that have been merged by the American media). Appointed in 2017 by Trump, he actually represented anyone in Kiev, but certainly not Donald Trump. He was also anyone - Petro Poroshenko’s lawyer, defender of the interests of the war against Russia until the last Ukrainian, but certainly not an intermediary in ending the civil war in Donbass.
Walker openly opposed Steinmeier’s formula and was a categorical opponent of the implementation of the Minsk Agreements. Agreements that seemed to underlie the entire peace process, which Volcker had to support and stimulate. And the Ukrainian radicals liked it. In the words of Oleg Lyashko, they did not need a “fast”, but a “just” peace in the Donbass. “His contribution to strengthening our strategic partnership with the United States is hard to overestimate. How hard it is to overestimate both its firmness and strategic vision of counteracting Russian aggression, ”said Petro Poroshenko.
Those who needed an early end to the bloodshed and the end of the civil conflict, Walker could not stand it. “He not only took the position of one side - Poroshenko, who professed the ideology of anti-Russian hysteria and cave Russophobia, but also allowed himself extremely radical statements and assessments addressed to representatives of the Russian Federation, Donetsk and Lugansk, thereby introducing negativity and harming the Minsk process. His public discourse not only interfered with negotiations and relations between the US and Russia, but went against the interests of Ukraine, ”said Viktor Medvedchuk, chairman of the political council of the Opposition Platform - For Life party.
Under Petro Poroshenko, the interests of Ukraine as a state were not particularly interested in anyone in Kiev. The local authorities, obsessed with ideological attitudes and charged by Western partners, stimulated a civil war, severed economic ties with Moscow, spread Russophobia through the media, and continued to plunder the country under the guise. Now the situation has changed a bit. And it's not that Vladimir Zelensky, his entourage, and even less so his “gray oligarch,” Igor Kolomoisky, are crying out for the good of Ukraine. Inquiries have changed, both of Ukrainian society, tired of the state of devastation and constant “Maidan”, and part of the western, who realized the need for dialogue with Moscow. Kurt Walker, with his policies, remained the rudiment of the “conflict for conflict” period, and at some point he would have been asked to leave.
However, he could have left, ahead of schedule, by a false start - against the backdrop of the scandal unfolding in the USA with Trump, with his pressure on Zelensky and the impeachment that the Democrats dream of organizing the American president.
Some believe that the resignation is related to Volker’s participation in organizing meetings of Rudolf Giuliani with Zelensky’s people - for example, with the assistant to the Ukrainian president Andriy Yermak. It turns out that Kurt Walker was involved in this dirty, from the point of view of the Democrats, history, for which he suffered. Others, based on the text of the "informer's report" (on the basis of which the scandal with Trump broke out), argue that in fact, Walker discredited himself before the owner of the White House.
Perhaps the US president was ready to put up with the post of his special representative as a person from the camp of ideological rivals, but he did not need a saboteur. Kurt Walker actually sabotaged Trump’s negotiations with Zelensky’s team in the Biden case: he explained to his Ukrainian partners how to “brace” this situation.
With Volcker's possible departure, the seemingly peace process will gain a new impetus - especially if Zelensky really decides to bet on Trump in the election race, hand over documents to Biden and follow the advice and decree of the American president on the start of direct Russian-Ukrainian negotiations . However, Walker had not yet said his last word: he (along with former US ambassador to Ukraine Mary Yovanovitch and others who had been dismissed by Trump) and others had already been invited to Congress to testify before the committees regarding the impeachment of Trump. After the deafening failure of the story with the transcript of the negotiations between Trump and Zelensky (where, contrary to the hopes of the Democrats, there was not a hint of blackmail) the "donkeys" who had piled blood in the nose need at least some evidence of pressure on Zelensky - and Walker can tell them that what they want to hear.
Moreover, Volcker, in general, has nowhere to go, because, according to rumors, he, too (like Biden) used his official position in Ukraine to supplement his family budget. For example, in the famous story of the transfer of anti-tank systems "Javelin" to Kiev.
The political aspect of this deal was understandable: by transferring such sophisticated weapons, the States showed their commitment to further protecting Ukraine. But with the military aspect, there were serious questions. Why Ukraine "Javelins"? Defend against the tank wave of the DNI / LNR armies, which will not? Burn an expensive Soviet complex with the cost of a shot of $ 80 thousand. Old Soviet tanks that are in service with these republics?
Now, apparently, the questions will disappear - after all, American journalists have found that the Raytheon company, which produces the Javelins, has close financial ties with the lobbying structure of the BGR Group, where Walker works. It became, by strange coincidence, one of the most high-profile advocates for the delivery of these systems to Ukraine. And, according to some reports, the team of the American president is already going to investigate the activities of an enterprising special representative. So either the dock or the status of the hero and savior of America from Trump can wait for him. The choice, I think, is obvious.
The author’s point of view may not coincide with the position of the publisher.