Home › Opinion › What the impeachment testimony meant for Kyiv
What the impeachment testimony meant for Kyiv
Summary
A look back at the revelations of early November 2019 and how they placed Ukraine at the centre of a US political inquiry.
What did Kyiv learn on 7 November 2019 about its place in Washington's impeachment inquiry? Ukraine was not a party to the proceedings, yet the testimony released in the days before that date was about Ukraine.
On 4 November 2019, three US House committees released transcripts of the first two closed-door depositions in the inquiry into President Donald Trump. Marie Yovanovitch, the former Ambassador to Ukraine, said she had felt threatened by the President. Michael McKinley, the former Ambassador to Brazil, said he resigned out of concern about the engagement of US missions in procuring negative political information for domestic purposes. He said he had never seen the State Department take part in such activity during his career, apart from under the Trump administration.
On 5 November 2019, Gordon Sondland, the US Ambassador to the European Union, reversed his earlier testimony. He admitted to a quid pro quo in the withholding of military aid for Ukraine.
Why it mattered for Ukraine
Taken together, the two sets of disclosures moved the questions from diplomatic corridors into the public record. Military aid for Ukraine was the subject of a sworn admission, and a former US envoy to Kyiv had described feeling threatened. For Ukrainian readers, the lesson was that support from a key partner was being discussed in terms of US domestic politics, a matter on which the inquiry continued to gather testimony.
