If you put the Ukraine controversy into average American terms

We have attempted to make the politics involved in and surrounding the current Ukraine scandal more relatable for the average American. While keeping the facts, as they are known, as consistent as possible we have restructured the scenario from politics to business. 

While this is not the perfect example, we do believe it addresses the issue in a short and understandable manner. Even the least politically minded should be able to get a feel for the issue at hand. 

In the example, the boss is the President. The whistleblower is a co-worker. The lawyers are Speaker Nancy Pelosi and the Democrat Socialists. HR is the DoJ. The Ukraine is you. The company is America, and the project is the Trump Administration policy. 

The Scenario

Your boss talks to your manager and wants them to see if they can demote you for doing a poor job. You don’t know this is happening.

A few days later, you are speaking with your boss, outside of work along with some of your co-workers, and he mentions the company-wide project you work on is not on schedule. He suggests you should work extra hard on that project. You agree its important for the company.

Your boss never introduces you to the people you mentioned, nor does he mention your conversation to the management team. You continue to do your job. They continue to do theirs.

You also mention that the people in management are doing a good job. You point out a couple of people in that department as particular examples. Your boss suggests you should talk with them about how they got to their positions so you can learn to do yours better. You agree with this idea.

Time flies…

Rep. Elijah Cummings, MD-7

A month or so later, you are informed that you will be demoted for poor performance of your job. A co-worker (that doesn’t like your boss and wanted his position), that is not in management nor involved in the conversation between you and your boss thinks that your boss intimidated you. They complain to HR – who reviews the case and determines that nothing happened that was unfair and note the bias of your co-worker (that they made public of their own free will previously).

2nd time is the charm

Someone else hears about the HR review and spreads a rumor about your boss on social media. Investors hear about it, and fearing a lawsuit sell the stock – hurting the business. A law firm (ambulance chasers type) hears about the rumor and starts a class action suit just as the boss tells everyone in the company that a transcript of the conversation will be provided as a memo for anyone interested to see to quell the unrest in the workers that don’t like him or his plans for the company.

Outside opportunities

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez

The lawyers declare that the memo, that they have not read, is proof of a crime and everyone should join the lawsuit and the boss should resign or be fired. Upon reading the memo, the people that don’t like your boss say it is doctored. People who like your boss note that there is no crime and that HR confirmed it. People that don’t like your boss say the other people are racist.

Sens, Sanders and Warren, 2020 Dem hopefuls

Meanwhile, you find out that the law firm and several people that don’t like your boss sold the company stock short (invested on the company losing money for a profit) 2 months ago and were losing their bet. The controversy is helping to make back their money.

In this scenario, who exactly is in the wrong?


About the Author

Michael Vass
Born in 1968, a political commentator for over a decade. Has traveled the U.S. and lived in Moscow and Tsblisi, A former stockbroker and 2014 Congressional candidate. Passionate about politics with emphasis on 1st and 2nd Amendments.

2 Comments on "If you put the Ukraine controversy into average American terms"

  1. If you read page 2-3 the conversation was about a Ukrainian Prosecutor that Biden threatened. Trump suggested looking into the Prosecutor so that the President Zelensky doesn’t make a horrible mistake of trusting someone that he shouldn’t. That’s what the whole conversation is about. If people would learn to read and not ASSUME. We know what that word means, people would learn to read.

  2. Tam,

    To be exact, page 2 is about how Europe is not helping Ukraine. Specifically President Trump highlights Angela Merkel of Germany. Which Zelensky agrees with.

    Page 3 is where President Trump requests help in clarifying interference in US elections – external and internal. That deals with the hacking of DNC computers, the investigation of which involved a Ukraine company. This was part of the Mueller probe.

    The end of page 3 and top of page 4 was an inquiry into the public boasts of Biden about influencing Ukraine politics that also benefited Biden’s son.

    “The other thing. There’s a lot of talk about Biden’s son, that Biden stopped the prosecution and a lot of people want to find out about that so whatever you can do with the Attorney General would be great. Biden went around bragging that he stopped the prosecution so if you can look into it … It sounds horrible to me.”

Thank you for lending your voice. We appreciate hearing what you have to say.

%d bloggers like this: