For many of us, any indignation that Ukraine had handed MH17 witness and potential suspect Volodymyr Tsemakh over to Russia vanished as the plane carrying 35 Ukrainian political prisoners and POWs landed in Kyiv. Those still raging might take the advice of one political prisoner’s brother and ask whether their mother or their children “are worth being exchanged for Tsemakh.” The situation is, however, not necessarily straightforward for other reasons as well – not least the degree to which Russia will now be openly obstructing the international investigation, without even the excuse that it is simply protecting its own citizens.
As reported, Mr. Tsemakh had been captured by the Security Service of Ukraine (SBU) on June 27. Although the charges against him in Ukraine pertained to his role as a militant commander of a unit that had downed several Ukrainian military transport planes, his arrest was internationally reported in connection with the downing by a Russian Buk missile of Malaysian Airlines Flight 17 (MH17) on July 17, 2014. While a militant leader, Denis Pushilin, immediately tried to claim that Ukraine was “falsifying” material, and the Russian state media, using quotation marks, casts doubt on Mr. Tsemakh’s witness status, in fact, this is not in question. It could hardly be in doubt when there is a video in which Mr. Tsemakh certainly appears to be admitting to a role in the attempt to conceal the Buk missile launcher after it became clear that a passenger airliner had been downed.
We know from a Dutch Foreign Ministry letter that the Netherlands was informed Mr. Tsemakh might be part of an exchange back in the middle of August and that the Dutch Public Prosecutor was given an opportunity to question him again, with this opportunity being taken. Although the Dutch certainly asked Ukraine not to include Mr. Tsemakh in the list of prisoners to be exchanged, the letter notes that he was included “under pressure from the Russian Federation” and states that “the government would recall once more that Russia, too, is obliged to cooperate on the basis of U.N. Security Council Resolution 2166.” That resolution was adopted on July 21, 2014, with even Russia endorsing “efforts to establish a full, thorough and independent international investigation into the incident in accordance with international civil aviation guidelines.”
Russia has been criticized by the Joint Investigative Team (JIT) for failing to provide basic information, most recently during the press conference on June 19 when the JIT announced that three former or current Russian GRU (military intelligence) officers were to go on trial in absentia for their believed part in the crime. While none is accused of having fired the missile, the chain of command to Russia provided by the four men is believed to have played a direct role in getting the Buk missile launcher to Ukraine and subsequent events. Russia has, for example, consistently failed to inform the JIT whether one of the men, Sergei Dubinsky, is currently a GRU officer.
The Dutch Public Prosecutor had announced eight days before Mr. Tsemakh was captured that this trial would begin on March 9, 2020, and the above-mentioned letter stresses that Mr. Tsemakh’s movements “will have no repercussions” for this trial.
Although a live witness or suspect is, in principle, very important, it was not at all clear how much could be achieved. Ukraine’s then Prosecutor General Yuriy Lutsenko has reported that Mr. Tsemakh was interrogated, but that he had refused any deal with the investigators. Ukraine’s Constitution would not allow for a Ukrainian citizen to be extradited to the Netherlands.
This, obviously, does not change the fact that access to Mr. Tsemakh would have been much easier had he remained in Ukraine. Yet that, and much more about this exchange, highlights a position that Russia would have no need to take if it had nothing to hide.
The near collapse of the negotiations on the exchange around August 30 and the immediate moves towards completion of it after Mr. Tsemakh’s release from custody made it blazingly clear how badly Russia wanted Mr. Tsemakh out of the JIT investigators’ reach. Russia has reportedly already received a request from the Netherlands for Mr. Tsemakh’s extradition. Since even Moscow cannot justify handing him Russian citizenship on the spot or explain away his sudden death from natural causes, there is absolutely no good reason for it to reject such an application, although it doubtless will.
While the Russian propaganda media are lavish with quotation marks and manipulative formulations, they cannot totally omit the fact of Mr. Tsemakh’s connection with MH17. If the Kremlin was hoping to get him out of Ukraine fairly quietly, then it was outmaneuvered. By the time the exchange took place, it was known that the entire exchange hinged on the release of this one MH17 witness, with that further intensifying the suspicion that Mr. Tsemakh was, in fact, the only reason why Russian President Vladimir Putin was willing to hand over prisoners like Oleh Sentsov and Roman Sushchenko.
For all the noise that Russia made about Ukraine’s arrest of RIA Novosti Ukraine director Kirill Vyshynsky, he was in detention for a year with no attempt to organize an exchange. It seems likely that Mr. Tsemakh is believed to have knowledge that can do more damage to the Kremlin than showing its hand so clearly by whisking Mr. Tsemakh off to Moscow.