Podoliak on the meaning of the letter from the US and the list of priority reforms
Advisor to the Head of the Presidential Office Mykhailo Podolyak spoke in an exclusive interview with Fakty ICTV conducted by journalist Oksana Mykhailova about the importance of the US list of reforms, the fight against corruption and partnership.
– Why did Ukraine receive the list of reforms from the United States right now? How did the Ukrainian authorities perceive it?
– As a working moment. This is not a letter with any requirements for Ukraine as such. First, I would divide it into two parts: everything related to military assistance has nothing to do with the implementation of certain reforms – economic, political, justice, etc. The second component is, respectively, the reforms themselves. We are going to the EU, to certain communities where there are certain rules. I mean the economy, the political space, freedom of speech, the justice sector, law enforcement, the judiciary, etc.
There is nothing new here. The issue is that we need to recognize the importance of certain reforms that should make Ukraine more competitive in two areas. The first is the economy. We have to choose our priorities. And the second is transparency. This means public control over the law enforcement system, public control through supervisory boards over certain enterprises. And quite specifically, the protection of investments as such.
– So military aid will not depend on the progress in reforms?
– I want to emphasize that there should be no speculation. Everything that concerns military support for Ukraine is about bringing the war to a fair conclusion. You and I understand what a fair ending is – where Russia loses, of course. This has nothing to do with what Ukraine will look like in terms of the architecture of a new type of state after the war. These are two processes. Both processes are important for us.
First of all, it is, of course, military assistance. We must receive the quantitative tools we need to move forward and de-occupy our territory. And this does not depend on the second component, which is also important to us. This is to increase the transparency and competitiveness of the state so that after the war, when we integrate into a fairly competitive system, and the EU and European communities are an extremely competitive system. By the way, when we discuss the issue of land grain corridors, we see, for example, what trade wars are, what protection is, what protection of national producers is, and so on.
We have to be ready for this and we have to get a different architecture of three components. The first is the economy, a different infrastructure, the second is the state, a different infrastructure, and the third is a different type of justice system, anti-corruption, judicial and law enforcement systems.
– How can we assess the reforms that have already been implemented? What has been achieved and what still needs to be done?
– The key thing, in my opinion, is that we need to build a new type of economy. That is, to choose those industries that can be much more promising, not to remain in the Soviet aggregated economy, as we had for 30 years. Then we need to create an infrastructure that will attract huge investments here, because we will need it given the destruction we suffered in this war. But we have to find a tool to protect investments. Today, you can come in with investments and then get a number of problems with how these investments should work. That is, industries, production, investments, investment protection, non-interference of certain coordinating law enforcement agencies in the work of the economy as such.
– And what about anti-corruption issues that are also related to the economy?
– Regarding corruption, I think today is perhaps the most active period when we are talking about corruption, firstly, clearly understanding where this corruption is and how it manifests itself. Secondly, we are looking for tools to actively attack corruption centers, even despite the war. Thirdly, we need to reduce the distribution burden on the state, which means that the state should reduce the number of functions that can be monetized in the gray area. And, of course, the President has repeatedly said that we need to get rid of this desirable tool for obtaining improper revenues at different levels. I think we will solve this problem over time.
By the way, corruption is one of the important aspects of Russia’s foreign policy, which has been used to enter many other areas, including Ukraine. In particular, they distorted politics and the elite here, made them feel that you can get money regardless of your level of competence. And this created the conditions for Russia’s subsequent expansions – cultural, informational, or even military. Or we will realize that corruption is not good, situationally, briefly, someone will get an extra $100, but in terms of state interests, it will lead to very serious consequences.
– What would you say about asset declarations as one of the components of the fight against corruption?
– I would single out several important components. First, society has an extremely pronounced demand for justice in general. It cannot be that society pays a huge price on the front and in the rear and, accordingly, donates more to the Armed Forces, while we gradually get strange dollar millionaires sitting in public office. Society will not tolerate this, especially against the backdrop of a war that has been going on for 19 months. We have a certain emotional background. This is the first component.
The second component is that we need to respond quickly. The President clearly responds to the demands of society that he feels. As for the open declarations, it is important to understand why certain people do not want to declare something, some of the assets they have received over the past 19 months. This is a partnership. Successful states are those that have a partnership between society and state institutions. If this partnership does not exist, and unfortunately, today we can, if we do not make certain adjustments to the model of behavior of state institutions, we will have non-partnership.
And in times of war, non-partnership is fatal. In other words, we will not win the war, because society will follow the same path, and state institutions will have a toxic reputation that will prevent them from communicating with society. This is very important. Corruption is not just about someone getting an income, corruption is an erosion of mutual trust. And if there is no trust in time of war (in peacetime, if there is no trust, we know what it leads to – revolutionary consequences, right and just), it will lead to fatal consequences for the statehood.
– How should we perceive the appointment of the US inspector general for aid?
– There are auditors from the Pentagon, there are auditors from the State Department, there are people in general, this is Ms. Pritzker, who will be looking at huge financial programs for reconstruction and infrastructure, the economy. I see this as a much more integrated partnership. This is a very important signal. It shows that they believe in us, strategically believe in us, and want to see an open infrastructure. And this is very cool. This is very good. This does not mean that there is any distrust, no. This is how all systems work.
There is audit everywhere, in all countries. Proper financial and economic relations are built on this. That is, you need to understand the priority, because audit is not only about what is used, it is about understanding what you need, what is dominant, where you need more, where you need less, what is redistribution. And this is very important because the US is a key financial and resource partner for us, and they want to understand where they can use it more efficiently together with us. It seems to me that this is a symbol of the fact that they trust us, firstly, and secondly, they want to build a long-term strategy with us, and thirdly, they want to clearly identify priorities. This is a qualitative symptom.
– Is the audit related to the control of military aid?
– If we are talking about the Pentagon, yes, it is a matter of effective use of a large amount of weapons. Look at how it works. The United States allocates a certain percentage of its budget. It is money. But this money goes to the US military-industrial complex, which means it creates additional jobs in the US, it fuels the US economy. After that, the United States manufactures it and sends it to the warehouse, and from the warehouse it is sent to us. So it is beneficial for the United States. The question is that the Pentagon auditors want to see what weapons are being used and how they are being used, whether one area of arms supply should be increased or another. In other words, they want to be kept up-to-date on the latest information.
This is a promising cooperation between us and the United States. It will allow us to speed up the adoption of certain logistical decisions, the supply of certain types of weapons, and the possibility of changing the supply situation, that is, what we need today, not tomorrow.
This war has shown us what types of weapons need to be further modernized, what we need to bet on, what types of production to initiate and what types to invest in more, such as drones, long-range missiles, what flaws exist and what needs to be fixed. This huge amount of information, together with investment components, will allow us to reformat not only our military industry, but will also be important for the US military industry.
Photo: screenshot from the video
