On April 14, CNN’s Jim Sciutto reported on the expanding web of contacts between people surrounding Donald Trump, and Russia. In a five-minute long section of the AC360 programme, Sciutto detailed the known links, and highlighted a couple of key players, one of the featured individuals was Paul Manafort.

As part of the CNN report, obviously covering the firing of National Security Adviser Michael Flynn and statements of ex-Trump adviser Carter Page and meetings in the Seychelles and meetings between Jared Kushner and the Russian Ambassador to the United States, an interview with Paul Manafort was played, in which he stated:

“As far as the (Viktor) Yanukovych Administration is concerned, you will see if you do any fact checking that I was the person that negotiated the the framework which is, based upon which, Ukraine is now a part of Europe. That was my role. That’s what I did, and when it was completed I left.”

The problem here is that there’s essentially zero truth in this statement. It is basically wrong on all levels, so, as per Manafort’s invitation, here comes a little fact checking. To begin with, Manafort appears to know very little about the agreements he is claiming to have been fundamental in negotiating, and insisting that his role was limited to this area.

Is Ukraine ‘now a part of Europe?’

Yes, and no. Geographically Ukraine is in Europe, but, it always has been, and so unless Manafort is claiming to be God he can take none of the credit for this simple fact. But, Ukraine is not “now a part of Europe” when it comes it comes to the political union of the European Union, Ukraine has an Association Agreement and a Deep and Comprehensive Free Trade Agreement with the EU. In addition, Ukrainians have recently been granted a much-welcome liberalizing of visa requirements for travel to the Schengen countries of the European Union. The history of negotiating and concluding these agreements shows little sign of the involvement of Manafort.

Discussion of forging closer ties between Ukraine and Europe date back as far as 1994, however little was done in practical terms to head down this route, Ukraine’s first ruling elites post-independence found it more beneficial to line their pockets rather than adapt to European standards of governance. We have to fast forward to 2002 to find more meaningful statements from either side with regard to fostering deeper ties between Ukraine and the EU (note, that’s now 15 years ago, the discussions were carried out in an open and transparent manner, and elicited no objection from Russia.)

In 2002, Ukraine’s then President Leonid Kuchma stated that Ukraine wanted to sign an Association Agreement with the EU by 2003/4, and that the country would have met all of the requirements for membership of the EU by 2007/11. The former president was obviously testing the waters and hopelessly optimistic, the response from the EU Enlargement Commissioner at that time (Gunther Verhuegen) was that a “European perspective” for Ukraine didn’t necessarily mean membership within 10 or 20 years, but it was however “a possibility.” Note, Manafort wasn’t even in the picture. Note also that the lukewarm and vague EU response hardly backs up the claims (by, not coincidentally, Euro skeptics like the loud mouthed ignoramuses that collectively make up the UK Independence Party) that the EU was somehow responsible for trying to wrest Ukraine away from a perceived natural alliance with Russian interests.

Although Kuchma (and Vladimir Putin) wanted Yanukovych to inherit the presidency of Ukraine, the 2004 Orange Revolution put a stop to that, thankfully, and in his place Victor Yushchenko was elected. Yushchenko campaigned on promises to bring Ukraine closer to Europe and pledges to conclude an Association Agreement. Manafort is still not in the picture, but he’s soon to enter it.

The Yanukovych makeover

As the “baddie” in the Orange Revolution, Yanukovych went from being within grasp of the highest seat in Ukraine, to being a political outcast. What he needed was a make over, and that’s really what Paul Manafort was hired for, sometime in 2006. To give the man a new image, paint him (wrongly, but why let reality get in the way of politics?) as being committed to democracy, and teach him how to smile for the camera and lie more efficiently, a decision was made to bring in an American firm of political consultants who would work to get this deeply corrupt former convict genuinely elected. Via a Russian oligarch called Oleg Deripaska, Manafort had a new gig.

The fact that Manafort had a background of advising unpalatable politicians was no doubt a factor in his selection, a man who has worked for Congolese dictator Mobuto Sese Seko and Filipino dictator Ferdinand Marcos can’t really have too much in the way of morality restraining him, and so his association with Yanukovych was perfectly natural. But make no mistake, Manafort’s claim that his role with Yanukovych started and ended with negotiating some “framework” with Europe is, at the very minimum, an enormous lie of omission.

Yanukovych, of course, became a ruinous president for Ukraine. His blatant corruption must have been known to Manafort, but Manafort turned a blind eye to that and got on with helping his client in various ways, including an attempt to buy up local media in the southern city of Odessa (using money from the aforementioned Russian oligarch Oleg Deripaska) so that messages leading to support of Yanukovych’s Party of Regions could be crafted and delivered, and also helping to orchestrate protests against a NATO training exercise taking place in Crimea, stating the obvious now, that’s nothing whatsoever to do with Europe.

‘When I completed, I left’

This, also, is simply not true. It appears that Manafort wants to create the impression that he did a good thing for Ukraine (he certainly didn’t,) and left as a winner because he saw the job through to the end (he didn’t do that either.)

With Yanukovych having taken up exile in Russia after his power base collapsed when his former allies were calling for a Parliamentary session to seek his impeachment, Manafort’s Ukraine gravy train was more or less ending, but it wasn’t completely over, he still had a few people seeking his advice.

Manafort’s swan song in Kyiv wasn’t in helping to push the EU – Ukraine Association Agreement and DCFTA over the finish line, when those things were in fact signed he had absolutely nothing to do with it, as these agreements were completed after negotiations with the post-revolutionary leaders of Ukraine, with whom Manafort had almost zero involvement.

The job that Manafort actually completed before he left Ukraine was taking the shell of the now defunct Party of Regions, and helping with an image make over, again. A few (quite rich) politicians wanted to stay together, but a rebrand was needed, and so Manafort helped to create the party, name, image, that is now the “Opposition Bloc” on Ukraine’s current political scene. Although a more appropriate name might have been the Obstructionist Bloc, judging by their voting records in parliament.

The creation of the Opposition Bloc and the crimes attributable to the period when Yanukovych was president are the twin legacies of Manafort’s work in Ukraine. The statement he made to cover this reality is laced with falsehood.

Fact checking, as per his invitation, Manafort’s pants are on fire. But, in the very near future this is likely to be the least of his problems.