Kyiv: Ukrainian politician, entrepreneur and presidential candidate in the elections in 2019 Inna Bogoslovskaya, in an exclusive interview with Front News International, criticized the policy of Petro Poroshenko, the Minsk agreements process, she spoke about her election campaign, participation in signing the Kharkiv agreements and the Law "On Language".
Front News International - What do you think about the current rating of presidential candidates, being one of them? Is it Justifiable?
Inna Bogoslovskaya: - To do this, you must first understand where it comes from. If you now present a circle in which we will mark those who respond to the questions, then it will be clearly visible that 75% of citizens refuse to participate in polls. And now we have 25% left who vote. While 28% of them have not yet decided. Recently, a similar survey was conducted in major cities of Ukraine, the results of which are not encouraging. For example, in Kharkov near the central metro from 9 am to 6 pm only 3 people answered the question in the questionnaire. This means that citizens have rejected politics, so now sociology does not at all reflect the real interests of the people. In business, this is called the "blue ocean" - nothing is clear, anything can happen. This is very similar to the recent elections in countries such as South Korea, the United States and France. There, people became presidents
FNI - How do you assess the political situation in Ukraine at the moment?
Ib - 89% of Ukrainian citizens are people who do not perceive what is happening in the state and behave simply aggressively. But today in our country the mood for protest is great.
FNI - In your interview for one of the Ukrainian media, you called the country's development plan, which was written back in 2005, 80% relevant. Will you stick to this plan in your policy?
Ib - After 2005, another book was written called Future Starts Today. It develops precisely those positions that modern life is already pushing us. For example, the emergence of technology blockchain. It provides an electronic base in which it is impossible to make any changes, either by criminal means or bureaucratic means. This provides completely new control options. Taking this technology as a basis, we will restore order in those areas where the accounting system is obsessed. One of the parameters will be the electronic census of the population, from which it will be impossible to cross out something or to contribute something there if necessary. Thus, we will finally stop, during the elections, to take into account the voices of people who are no longer alive, as they are doing now. Therefore I'm sure
FNI - How do you plan to reform the country so that it leads to real improvements? Which of the following areas, in your opinion, is most likely to be launched?
Ib - Speaking about spheres, we certainly have a big problem with the economy and with human rights, but this should not start with this. Let's imagine the schedule of our political life: April 21 - the second round of elections, then October 27 - parliamentary elections. The first thing we have to do is change the election law. If this does not happen, the same oligarchic groups that are called parties in Ukraine will come to parliament. Today, parties are the greatest enemy of democracy: they do not reflect the will of the people, do not lobby social demands, do not reflect social groups. Their goal is to represent the interests of those in whose hands large capital is concentrated. Therefore, if we really want to break the system of oligarchs, this reform is the one with which the president must enter the parliament on the day of inauguration. The consequences of this should be the abolition of entry barriers in parliamentary elections, the opening of social elevators, and the prohibition of political advertising; then people without large capital will enter the parliament, as well as restrictions on the electoral fund of presidential candidates next to which criminalization of the violation of this rule and the condition for the candidates to
participate in debates will be imposed. Then it will be very similar to the elections of 1994 when people who represent the interests of citizens really entered the parliament. Also, the president - he must be non-partisan, because a party will never break the system of oligarchs, and he must come with an official protocol of his actions regarding parliamentary elections so that millions of people have the opportunity to take part in them. Perhaps it will be representatives from public organizations,
FNI - Whom do you consider your electorate?
Ib - These are the 75% of people who do not perceive the way in which Ukraine is developing today, have not decided for whom they will vote, who do not want to vote for those thieves and criminals, whom we can see today in the same ratings. These are all people who are waiting for changes in the country. The fact that today 1.5% of our citizens are members of political parties, the fact that today there are practically no such political parties indicates that a non-party candidate with a program to help the country get out of the crisis is the one the majority will support. That is what I consider.
FNI - How do you rate the performance of Petro Poroshenko in the UN?
Ib - If you evaluate Poroshenko as a speaker? As the speaker, Poroshenko is good. As the speaker, one is sometimes just brilliant. But, unfortunately, this person does not present confidence now either inside Ukraine or on the international field. Everyone knows that Poroshenko did not become president, but remained a merchant in this post. The affiliation of his business to the Russian actually cancels out all attempts to be a patriot. The appearance of offshore companies during the presidency completely deprives him of the support of society, since he actually steals money from his country and takes it offshore during the war. In the UN, he also does not have this support, because all international politicians understand: in front of them stands a man who betrays his people. Therefore, whatever Peter Alekseevich would say, no matter how well and melodically he says it, his real actions put a big cross on all these attempts.
FNI - Leonid Kuchma has officially announced his withdrawal from the Minsk agreements process. How, in your opinion, can this affect their further implementation? And can this be called the last breath of the Minsk agreements?
Ib - There is no Minsk treaty! This is not a legal document, its effectiveness from the point of view of international law is zero. The only document that is negative for Ukraine is the UN Security Council resolution, where Russia is not even recognized as the aggressor of the conflict in the Donbas. Regarding Minsk, Leonid Kuchma did everything that depended on him even under the conditions when he could not influence the documents he signed. Therefore, he does not bear any responsibility for their content, since the Minsk agreements were resolved only between Poroshenko and Putin. I believe that when Minsk -1 was a necessity to stop the bloodshed, then Minsk-2 was a betrayal. And only pressure from civil society made Poroshenko give up some points, which is why, in fact, this process is now being delayed. Therefore, Kuchma, of course, I have to thank, but I repeat that no one from the Minsk group is responsible for the signed documents, which are a common surrogate. Now we have an aggravation of the situation. Leaked information that Putin and Trump we're talking about the referendum, although the US authorities are trying to refute it. And it is very dangerous. In addition, we are aware of the illegally scheduled elections in the territory of the “DPR” and “LPR”, during which this referendum can be held.
FNI - In June 2012, even before the events on the Maidan, you voted for the draft Law of Ukraine “On the Basics of the State Language Policy”, where the status of the Russian language was enhanced. Why, then, did you vote that way, and how would you do if such a vote took place now?
Ib - I think it was right. The fact that the nationalists began to create around this project is unacceptable. Our Constitution clearly states that the only state language is Ukrainian. The same was spelt out in the law on language policy, which was adopted in 2013. Next, to this, the Constitution states that Ukraine guarantees the development and protection of languages of national minorities, the Russian language and others, and the project that was accepted at that time only developed these positions. Therefore, this law will be correct as long as the Constitution exists. This is confirmed by the Constitutional Court. And it was cancelled only because of a violation of the procedure for voting, and not through the adoption of illegal practices. The situation, that is happening in language policy now - it is simply tearing our state apart and playing into the hands of Putin in his desire to divide Ukraine. We need to do something with this. Bilingualism of people is a resource of development, not a problem. Regarding Ukrainian as the only state language, then it needs to be developed, to invest money in it! The only sphere where it is being done now is the Ukrainian cinema. The result is a big breakthrough with international awards.
FNI - Do you think that Russia’s annexation of the Crimea is partly your fault, as a person who supported the signing of the Kharkiv agreements?
Ib - This is absolute nonsense. Let's see what the Kharkiv agreements were signed for, and what did they do? After Tymoshenko lost to Yanukovych in the 2010 elections, in which I also took part, the authorities, who came, saw that we had an agreement on gas, which in fact led the Ukrainian economy to bankruptcy. He made us uncompetitive. That is why it was decided to start signing the Kharkiv agreements. In fact, it was the change in gas purchase contracts that became the main link in these negotiations. Since until 2009 I was the head of the special investigative commission on gas contracts, I understood perfectly well what danger they actually bear. When I saw that the terms of the Kharkov agreements were to reduce the price of gas by $ 100 per cubic meter and to exclude a 300 per cent fine for non-fulfilment of the “buy or pay” conditions, I realized that this was our real chance. And the fact that these agreements served the further annexation of the peninsula is an absolute nonsense. They did not affect the expansion or improvement of Russia's position in the Crimea. According to the agreement on the deployment of the base of the Russian Black Sea Fleet in Ukraine, it was supposed to stay here until 2017. The annexation of the peninsula took place in 2014. That is, the Kharkiv agreements did not wriggle about it. But what had to be done, and on what I insisted, was the formation of a Russian-Ukrainian condominium in Sevastopol, where a foreign military base is located. Then the internal border would be established and it would be impossible to capture the peninsula so simply. If we had done this, there would have been no possibility of annexing Crimea.
FNI - In the air of a political talk show of one of the country's TV channels during a verbal fight with Yevgeny Chervonenko, you slapped him for saying that you were taking money from the state reserve. What kind of money was it?
Ib - I have never had anything to do with money from the state reserve. Generally no. So I had to stop this verbal constipation. It is clear that he came to the studio as a representative of Medvedchuk, against whom I have been actively speaking all my life. It is clear that he had the task to quarrel. He behaved like a dog that got rabies, and I had to stop this shame.
FNI - In Ukraine, the political system is structured in such a way that there are people in power who are financed by oligarchs. Since you also want to come to power, so an obvious question arises: who is financing you?
Ib - “ I am the white crow for Ukrainian politics.” I am the only person who in 1998 came into politics rich and self-sufficient, and left there with nothing. I spent all my money on work. Even the latter did not go to privacy, but to the election campaign of 2010. I had no chance of winning, but I went to warn that you could not vote for either Yanukovich or Tymoshenko. Victor Pinchuk, with whom we are always connected - my good friend, who just helped me. Today, the main task for me is to go through this campaign through fundraising, and we will do it. All my life I have been called a man who does the impossible. Even now. Do you think it is impossible to pass the elections at the expense of citizens' contributions? And I think that we will succeed in this, we will win.
Victoria Hmilevskaya, FNI