#Russia: Oleg Deripaska hits back at AP over Paul Manafort connections

The most recent installment in the Russiagate controversy engulfing the United States revolves around a recent story published by the AP earlier in March. The report claimed to prove that Paul Manafort, a long-time lobbyist and short-lived chairman of Donald Trump’s presidential run, had sought in 2005 to sign a PR contract with Oleg Deripaska, one of Russia’s richest men and owner of aluminium company UC Rusal. Quoting a string of unverified reports and confidential sources, the AP alleged that Manafort had offered to promote and “re-focus” the policies of “the Putin Government” in several Western countries as part of a communications campaign approved by Deripaska, writes James Drew.

The incendiary allegations led to a virulent response from Deripaska, who hit back at the AP by taking out ad space in the Wall Street Journal and the Washington Post. Calling the report “character assassination”, the aluminium tycoon has offered to testify before Congress to refute the claims made by the news organization. Deripaska denied signing the contract and called on the news organization to produce evidence of the work Manafort allegedly did on his behalf.

“I have never made any commitments or contracts with the obligation or purpose to covertly promote or advance 'Putin's government' interests anywhere in the world,” Deripaska wrote. What’s more, “an actual $10 million plus campaign to lobby Russian interests worldwide would leave some trace, a slew of at least unnamed sources, subcontractors and work output”. Otherwise, “ a supposed blue sky proposal (if it even exists) from a consultant is not the factual basis for anything”. All the AP could produce was to say that “the work actually performed is unclear”.

While Manafort and Deripaska have both confirmed working together, they insisted that their business relationship was focused only on providing investment consulting services. Instead, Deripaska argues he got swept up as “collateral damage” in the “increasingly shrill and controversial theatre of US-Russia relations” and that the claim the Russian government turned to him to run a media campaign is scurrilous. Interestingly, Anders Aslund, a well respected resident senior fellow at the Atlantic Council, has sided with Deripaska in the controversy, stating “there is a number of people suspected of being middle men for Putin, of holding assets for Putin but nobody thinks Deripaska is among them.”

The crux of the letter signed by Deripaska tells the story of how Rusal was founded, in response to the AP’s claims that he is “a Russian billionaire close to President Vladimir Putin” who made his fortune thanks to the Kremlin. The tycoon points out that he participated in the wave of privatizations that occurred in the early 1990s by buying shares in an aluminium smelter in Eastern Siberia – back when the future president was still working in the office of the mayor of Saint Petersburg. The head of Rusal also disagreed with the AP’s claim that he “bought assets abroad in ways perceived to benefit the Kremlin interests”, pointing to the fact that smelting aluminium requires bauxite, of which Russia has few reserves. Solving the issue, Deripaska wrote, meant investing in Guinea, an African nation that boasts a third of the world’s bauxite reserves.

It remains to be seen how the story will unfold, but as this latest episode in the Russiagate controversy proves, events should be taken with a grain of salt.

Share this article: