Will there be less scandals? How will the US policy regarding corruption in Ukraine change with the resignation of Brink

There are several versions of the resignation of the US ambassador to Ukraine Brigitte Brink, the most popular of which is that she did not find common ground with Trump's team. The question is what the disagreements were about, writes the observer "DS" Yury Vasylchenko.

Bridget Brink

Why Bridget Brink left Ukraine: versions

The Financial Times, citing sources, reported several versions of the reasons for the termination of Brink's diplomatic mission in Ukraine. The first version: her disagreement with the policy of the Trump administration. She was allegedly under pressure from Washington. The second: criticism of the President of Ukraine, Volodymyr Zelensky, for his toothless statement after a Russian missile hit Kryvyi Rih, resulting in many deaths, including nine children. But, according to the publication, this was not the main reason for the decision to leave our country, but "doubts about its readiness to support the strategy for Ukraine", which is being implemented in Washington.

The State Department denies the conflict with the ambassador. According to the press secretary of the US State Department, Temma Bruce, Bridget Brink worked for three years, and this is a long time in the combat zone. CBS sources also confirmed this detail among the reasons for the resignation: the ambassador serves far from her family, she submitted an application back in January, but the head of the State Department, Marco Rubio, rejected it. However, along with the versions about the conflict and fatigue, there is another one — "an unusual combination of personal and political problems, including recent layoffs at USAID." In turn, the Financial Times drew attention to the fact that Ukrainian officials considered Brink to be too critical of them, especially when it comes to rooting out corruption. If you connect the liquidation of USAID and anti-corruption projects in Ukraine, including the support of anti-corruption activists with American grants, the whole picture will emerge: the US strategy in relation to Ukraine and the Ukrainian government, in particular, is at odds with the policy of the democratic predecessors, and Brink does not fit into the new strategy. Simply put, during her tenure, the network of grant recipients grew, and after closing the financial faucet, the situation changes significantly. And under the new realities, a new ambassador will arrive in Ukraine.

According to Reuters sources, Chris Smith's candidacy is being considered to replace Brink. He has considerable diplomatic experience, including the position of Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Eastern Europe and Policy and Regional Affairs at the Bureau of European and Eurasian Affairs. He also worked at the US Embassy in Ukraine in 2022–2023. That is, the figure is not from among the Trumpists. There is an interesting fact in his biography: in 2018, Smith received the Warren Christopher award for outstanding achievements in the field of civil security as a result of his work on the fight against corruption, in the sphere of justice and law enforcement reform in Ukraine. So, with the realities of our corruption, the candidate for ambassador is a good sign. "There are two wars: with Russia and corruption, and we still support Ukraine in both," he said in March 2023 during a meeting of the ambassadors of the "Big Seven" with NABU director Semyon Krivonos.

As for Smith, this is an assumption, but it should be noted that regardless of who heads the American embassy in Ukraine, the topic of fighting corruption will remain in the field of view of overseas diplomats. However, approaches may change. Brink's predecessor Maria Jovanovych, who headed the mission in our country during 2016-2019, also favored anti-corruption activists. But her stay in Ukraine ended in a scandal. It happened not here, but in America. Trump removed her from office. Yovanovych was accused of "providing false information to the Ukrainian authorities" and opposing the president's policy. Trump accused Yovanovitch of refusing to hang his portrait in the embassy. And in October and November 2019, she twice testified against Trump in Congress during the impeachment hearings. In 2023, the diplomat published a memoir, where it is also about her work in Ukraine. She spoke with gratitude about Ukrainians, but not about all representatives of the then Ukrainian government.

So the story with the resignation of Brink can turn into something similar. As you know, the Democratic Congressman Al Green is preparing a motion to impeach Trump. Perhaps Brink, if she was really pressured by the US administration, will testify. But this is definitely not a matter of the near future. A significantly relevant question is whether the strategy of the State's policy towards Ukraine includes the supervision of our government from the side of civil society. In other words, what instructions from Marco Rubio regarding the fate of the network of anti-corruption activists will the new ambassador receive.

What kind of ambassador can Trump send to Ukraine?

On the one hand, it seems that the Trumpists should not give up the levers of pressure on the Ukrainian authorities through close cooperation with NABU and the entire anti-corruption vertical, including activists. On the other hand, the Trump administration, having liquidated USAID, itself abandoned the policy of grant support to its agents of influence in the public sector. Therefore, either the new ambassador will find a way to interest representatives of this part of Ukrainian society and she will continue to expose corruption in power, or work with influential groups and through various intermediaries and negotiators. This is one of the calling cards of Trump's foreign policy. It can be seen on the example of the shuttle diplomacy of Steve Witkoff, who repeatedly flew to Moscow, where he met with Putin. Despite the fact that Witkoff does not hold a government post.

The same story was during Trump's last term. His lawyer, Ruda Juliana, met with individual Ukrainian officials and ex-officials both outside Ukraine and in Kyiv. Where he came in December 2019. This happened against the background of hearings in Congress on the impeachment of Trump. Lev Parnas and Igor Fruman, who were close to Juliana, also performed the mediating mission. This is a well-known story about the alleged collection of compromising material against Joe Biden's son Hunter.

Simply put, the American administration can obtain information about the corrupt actions of the Ukrainian authorities without financing the anti-corruption network in Ukraine, but from different sources. Among them are interested in political destabilization. So, if the Pechersk Hills are happy that they got rid of Brink, who was friendly to the grant activists, then it is in vain. The option, when Smith will become the ambassador, also looks good, because the second is possible - with the appointment of an extraordinary and plenipotentiary, they will pull, collecting the necessary information without the embassy. His employees may not be trusted, since they worked with Brink and, in general, were appointed during the time of Biden. To become an ambassador under Trump, you need to prove your loyalty to him personally. So the new ambassador may be from the circle of Trumpists, and even come to Kyiv with a whole folder of compromising material just in time for the elections. Such a scenario is also quite possible.

Read also on Newsky "Testing Trump's nerves. Why did Kirill Dmitriev go to the USA and what did he return with? and look at "Boring Pence" YouTube channels.

To always be aware of events, subscribe to TG channel Newsky. We also recommend current discussions of friends of Ukraine in North America on Rashkin Report YouTube channels.