Interview with the French "Les Crises". Part 2

In this part of the interview, we discussed the details of the theft of the Party of Regions ' granary book for provocation in favor of the US Democratic party.


- Can you tell us the story of the so-called “Granary Book” after the Maidan, that is, where was it, who found it, and why only two years later they remembered about it - in 2016?

- You know, the story of this “Granary Book” is actually confusing and shrouded in secrets. According to the information I have, it was stolen from the office of the Party of Regions in February 2014, when there was a spontaneous, inexplicable assault on this office. Then numerous witnesses testified that the nationalist groups that stormed this office were purposefully seeking information. They took computers, storage media, servers and all documentation. By the way, people were killed during this raid! At such a price, these documents were captured. Subsequently, this book, this information disappeared and surfaced only in the 2016 in the hands of the security services of Ukraine. By the way, Viktor Tripak, who already transferred the materials to the National Anti-Corruption Bureau, for a long time was the head of the main directorate for combating organized crime, including a member of the group that was engaged in investigating the crimes of the Party of Regions. Therefore, I can reasonably suspect that the SBU officers, who were investigating the activities of the Party of Regions, and for the time being lay there, until the time came to use it, seized this book in 2014.

- In February 2014, who took this book?

- You see, no one has reliable information now, but I can reasonably suspect the nationalist storm-troopers who then seized the office of the Party of Regions in Kiev, of taking these materials. Subsequently, the Security Service of Ukraine took these materials from them

- So the SBU took this book back in 2014?

- I believe yes.

- How did Tripak receive this book and why he gave it to NABU without informing the SBU director?

- You see, the transfer of materials by Viktor Tripak to NABU is just one of the episodes of a whole multi-step, long-playing operation, in which Viktor Tripak was just one of the elements. Therefore, it is necessary to consider the entire operation as a whole. But in this particular episode, Victor Tripak received an order from the head of the operation to transfer the materials to NABU, and then NABU was used to distribute these materials to the general public.

- The director of SBU said that he did not know about what Tripak did. What do you think about this?

- Like any special service, the SBU is not a monolith. There are different clans and different trends, different groups of influence, and the head of the SBU, Vasily Gritsak, did not control all the clans. Naturally, different political forces had their own groups of influence within the SBU. Tripak participated in one, and Gritsak in the other.

- Why the SBU did nothing with this book for two years? After all, it is an important document on Yanukovych's corruption and so on.

- In fact, the issue of Yanukovych's corruption was dealt with without this book. The sensational criminal cases to investigate the actions of the criminal authorities went on without it. Roughly speaking, there was enough evidence. However, one should take into account the “behind-the-scenes struggle”, because the Yanukovych clan, the Yanukovych group, did not operate in vacuum. Many people who were involved in the activities of Yanukovych, they remained in the power structures of Ukraine and, in order not to be prosecuted, they could well slow down any investigations in this direction.

- Were you surprised by the fact that Sergei Leshchenko received 22 pages of this document without the name of Manafort and how did he get these pages?

- You see, I personally do not know Sergei Leshchenko, and I have not discussed this topic with him, that is, I can only use information that came to me from other sources. If we regard the entire operation with Paul Manafort as a global and well- planned multi-move to discredit him, then Leshchenko is also just one of the elements of this operation. Naturally, he received only what was needed to discredit Manafort. And exactly when it was needed.

- The operation to discredit Manafort began on August 14-15 when the New York Times published an article and when there was a press conference where he talks about it. Who spoke first, Sitnik or Leshchenko, and why did they talk to the New York Times?

- Here you can use the Latin phrase cui prodest - who benefits. If this operation to discredit Manafort was beneficial primarily to the American side, then naturally it was necessary to disseminate incriminating material on Manafort in the United States. And not in some mediocre media outlet, but in the well-known reputable media that the New York Times became. That is why the press conference was organized by this particular newspaper. Who benefits. Whoever orders the tune uses that one.