Pressure from Shulyak and Kubrakov. Why did they cancel my lectures at the International Republican Institute (IRI)?

For about 5 years I have been working as a lecturer at the International Republican Institute (IRI). I have an officially signed contract. During this time, I have developed more than 10 original lectures because there was a demand for them, people in the regions are eager to learn more and grow. Moreover, I was involved in various programs and gave lectures to more than 1000 conscious citizens during this time. 

One of the most popular lectures is about leadership. I teach people that leaders set goals that must align with high values and principles and lead society to these goals and values, shape culture, unite teams around them, create new leaders, and that leaders defend their values, and resist pressure even in the most challenging conditions. Teaching someone something and not doing it myself generally contradicts my principles. 

At the end of July and in August, three lectures were to be held with my participation, one of which was on the topic of women’s leadership. I had been helping to develop the design of the lectures and the program for months. A few days before the lecture, I was told that I was not going, no one officially explained the reasons, and yet the event took place. My participation in the other two events was immediately canceled. The reasons were not officially announced.

This happened after my publication about the urban planning “reform” 5655, in the context of which I mentioned former Deputy Prime Minister Oleksandr Kubrakov and quoted MP Anna Bondar (Servant of the People), who heads the working group that is developing the urban planning code (an alternative to 5655). The parliamentarian emphasized that the working group had lost the support of the Hoverla project (USAID) because Kubrakov had misinformed the US ambassador. There was nothing from me in the text, only direct speech.

I wrote an inquiry to IRI and to USAID, and for a month (!) I did not receive any response at all. As of August 28, 3 p.m., there has been none. It is really strange to have a signed contract, to fulfill your obligations under the contract, and when you are canceled for three lectures (and I planned my schedule for this), not to receive an official answer as to why your visit as a lecturer was canceled.

Those to whom I gave lectures come to me and ask about my future schedule, and I cannot answer and say only one thing: write to the International Republican Institute (IRI). They do not answer me for months, I cannot plan anything. Maybe they will respond to you here.

Letter from the co-chair of the UDAR faction in the Kyiv City Council Dmytro Bilotserkivets

In the meantime, I know for sure from parliamentarians that Olena Shulyak announced last fall that she would do everything to prevent me from being a lecturer at the International Republican Institute (IRI). After 20 years of work, I have my own trusted sources. I am very well informed about what is happening.

Do Shulyak and Kubrakov indeed have such an influence on their partners that they can block funding for the working group working on the urban planning code (Bondar’s statement), and block funding for the Institute of Civil Society (the Institute’s statement)?

Why can’t I, as a lecturer, receive an official response to my inquiry for a month?

I asked those who attended the lectures to try to get an official response from the IRI. In particular, I know that MP Mykola Kniazhytskyi (European Solidarity) sent his letter. Here is a copy of it.

Letter from Member of Ukrainian Parliament Mykola Kniazhytskyi to IRI

It should be added here that Shuliak and Kubrakov’s coverage of lobbying for the 5655 project is accompanied not only by pressure and misinformation from donors but also by censorship. For example, they removed an article from the Uriadovyi Kurier website and then returned it to the site, removing the comment of an unwanted speaker and adding Shuliak’s comment. Later, they tried to put pressure on Espresso to take down a publication by our analyst Heorhiy Mohylnyi, which was also about 5655, by paying money. Moreover, The Page was pressured to block an interview with Shulyak because she didn’t like the lead-in. On top of that, the Ministry of Restoration was involved in blocking the interview, which Detector Media wrote about. Is freedom of speech still a value or not?

A year ago, I felt pressure from those lobbying for unfair rules of the game for developers. I realized that they would misinform donors, among others, about the activities of those who do not allow the rules of the game to be favorable to developers. I was informed about this by those who follow our activities and care about the result. My sources in the NACP said at the start that 5655 looks like a cartel of developers by all indications. Besides, the Royal Chatham House Institute, when preparing a publication on the lobbying of the 5655 clone draft of the bill through the government, directly noted that there is a threat to the creation of the developer cartels.

I have been protecting Bilychansky Forest from developers for more than 15 years, and I know perfectly well how they can “work”. We have had people beaten, cars burned, threatened, and a memorial plaque made of granite installed on my house. To counteract what looked like a cartel, we had to form a separate team so that its activities did not affect other projects. Therefore, a year ago, I decided to leave the CHESNO Movement and eventually launched a new public initiative, “Holka” (The Needle). At the start, I took care of the team’s financial independence and minimized risks.

Everyone should understand that if we do not make transparent rules for reconstruction, when come back from the front, they will not wait another 50 or 100 years for us to fight corruption. Former veterans will not write articles or draw pictures. That is why we have less and less time to develop high-quality and transparent policies and launch their implementation.

Hence, I have a question: are we all ready to adhere to the declared values and principles that are important in the United States and Europe?

Or when we hold strategic sessions and write out values and principles and form the foundations of the brand of our organizations, are we doing it just to create a Google doc that no one will follow and that we will send to those who provide funding? Or are we doing it so that the whole team and organization can follow it?

I think that responding to official requests is important. It says a lot about the principles of the organization. But they don’t always respond.

That’s why the USAID/UK Transparency and Accountability in Public Administration and Services (TAPAS) project supported legislative initiative 5655. This was one of Shuliak and Kubrakov’s arguments in favor of the project. However, a request to name the experts who have studied the draft law and take responsibility for their expertise publicly has not yet been answered, although the request was sent at the beginning of the year. This raises the question of whether such values as transparency and accountability are shared indeed. Privately, I was told that they avoid risks. But what about transparency and accountability?

Who and why is afraid to say honestly: I am an expert, and I support the 5655 project on behalf of TAPAS because I don’t see any risks?

Where there is no transparency, corruption thrives.

Coming back to IRI, I would like to say that there is a huge team of specialists who are passionate about the development of party education and the public sector, and they do perform important and supportive work. Sowing knowledge and values in the regions over the years, which should sprout, is a great help to strengthen statehood. And many important things are being done here. I am immensely grateful for these 5 years of opportunities to go to the regions and reach out to people.

However, I should also mention that there are those who, by their activities, undermine the work of the entire team, not only the IRI but also the lecturers who prepare lectures, form a positive perception of women’s leadership, and counteract sexism.

The case of Marichka Dovbenko with her program “In Bed” is more than illustrative, and I have written about it publicly before. As it turned out, she is an IRI communicator. “Detector Media wrote about this program as follows: “A show in bed as a manifestation of the senselessness of Ukrainian YouTube”.

If Dovbenko were just a blogger and not associated with the IRI brand, it would be a different story and we could ignore it. However, she is associated with the brand of an international organization, which surely has policies that must be followed.

By the way, note that here in the official signature, “communications manager” is used in a non-feminine form. (note: according to the new rules of spelling in the Ukrainian language, there are masculine and feminine forms to indicate job titles). This speaks for itself.

Screenshot from the IRI announcement

When you represent an international organization and are also responsible for communications (shaping the perception of the organization’s brand), this is a serious responsibility. Incidentally, given that there was a crisis in communications and I clearly stated in my appeal that I was under pressure from Shulyak and Kubrakov, the communications manager should have prepared a response or definitely should have been involved in this process.

Yet there was no response. I understand that the work of communication specialists is very difficult, especially in times of war, and they can be busy. However, Maria Dovbenko, as practice shows, finds time for her program and for congratulating Olena Shulyak on her birthday and writes “I admire the ability of this talented woman to dominate the male world” (!!!). Isn’t this sexism? And what about values?

It would take a month to find time to respond to a letter from one of the IRI lecturers. Especially since the “In Bed” project continues to be published. It is a matter of priorities. Well… and of values and principles.

During the recording of this program, by the way, Shulyak mentioned veteran Oleh Symoroz, who criticized 5655. Let me remind those who have forgotten that when Symoroz was recovering from an injury and surgery, Shulyak came to his hospital uninvited precisely because of the criticism of 5655. This stirred up the public. Not only did not he invite her to his ward but also he did not invite her to the showdown over 5655 when he was recovering from surgery.

Simoroz quite naturally asked Dovbenko for the right to respond in the same format, which he officially wrote about in a letter. However, as I understand it, this right was never granted. He also contacted IRI and posted screenshots on his Telegram channel of what the IRI brand could be associated with through Dovbenko’s communications officer.

Screenshots posted by veteran Oleh Symoroz’s channel

Of course, we can say that in her free time, Marichka Dovbenko can do whatever she likes. Even something that does not match the values of the IRI brand (clearly, there should be a policy of equidistance from all politicians, combating sexism, etc. This is an international organization, and Dovbenko officially works as a communicator).

In that case, I have a question. Why does someone care not about the quality of my lectures, which I am contracted to give, but about the articles I write about the urban planning “reform” 5655 in the media? Also, how can we interpret the fact that after the article was published, I was told that I was not going to the lectures that took place? The reasons, I emphasize once again, have not been officially stated. I perceive what is happening as another attempt to put pressure on me. And I am convinced that international partners are being misinformed by lobbyists of large developers.

We can continue to travel as lecturers with the IRI team and give dozens of lectures on women’s leadership, combating sexism, and launch projects to involve veterans in important processes. All of this can be funded by US taxpayers.

But none of this will be truly effective if the values and principles are not embedded in the activities of the organizations and the people they represent. 

It is crucial to have a value core and principles. In my paradigm, an official response to my request from someone with whom I have a contract is an important principle in the organization’s work. And besides principles, there are also values. An honest answer is already a value that I have not yet received, but which I am waiting for.

Perhaps the IRI’s communications officer, who, as we can see, is so close to Olena Shulyak, did not bring the information to the management. Therefore, I am stating publicly that I am waiting for an official response:

“Why, after the article about Kubrakov and 5655, was I told that I was not going to the events for which I designed the program and which took place?

I already know the answer from the sources, but I would like to get it officially. When you answer someone, you also answer yourself. It is sometimes the answer to very important questions.

Updated: After the release of the collective statement about the pressure, after the release of this op-ed, and after the MPs wrote letters to the IRI, the International Republican Institute contacted me and informed me that the IRI leadership is ready to meet in September. I accept this offer, but I am still waiting for a written response to my inquiry, which was sent more than a month ago.

Special for Channel 24