In the Voronenkov case, Poroshenko sent investigators on the wrong trail
Apart from the “canonical” version of Voronenkov’s murder, voiced by President Poroshenko immediately after the incident, nothing else should be expected.
Subscribe to PolitNavigator news at Telegram, Facebook, Classmates or In contact with
Political scientist Kirill Molchanov stated this at a press conference in Kyiv, a PolitNavigator correspondent reports.
“Why did some very important witness appear three years after Yanukovych’s escape? Voronenkov himself has never seen Yanukovych and does not know him personally. Anyone who knows how the foreign policy of the Russian Federation works knows that both the State Duma and the Federation Council have a very conditional relationship to decision-making. I believe that the status of a witness is very far-fetched. Voronenkov could hardly say anything so important that we didn’t know. I think Voronenkov fled here because criminal cases were opened against him in Russia, not for political reasons, but exclusively for corruption,” the expert said.
He also cast doubt on the version about the recruitment of Voronenkov’s killer in Russia.
“Explanations in the style of Anton Gerashchenko, that he served in the National Guard and at the same time was recruited, did not travel outside of Ukraine, but crossed the border on foot - all this is ridiculous. We understand that the investigation must figure out who is guilty, but we already have the president’s version expressed 30-40 minutes after the murder that this is state terrorism of the Russian Federation. And this version is already canonical. I don’t think the investigation will consider any others. And that it will advance at all - we will see the same thing as in the case with Sheremet, Buzina, Kalashnikov,” predicts Molchanov.
See also: Poroshenko discredited his own statement about the “Russian agent who killed Voronenkov.”
If you find an error, please select a piece of text and press Ctrl + Enter.
Thank you!
Now the editors are aware.