'Joe Biden' did not have Shokin fired. All the main international actors supporting Ukraine, including the EU, US and the IMF, demanded to have Shokin fired. Joe Biden went to Ukraine in December and made those threats he later boasted about, but in reality Shokin was't fired until several months later. And I haven't seen it reported anywhere if Biden's threat about withholding aid if Shokin wasn't fired, was actually carried out by the US government.
Secondly, it seems to be rather in dispute whether Shokin was in fact making any significant progress on the investigation into Burisma, which already existed before he came into office. He says he was, but the people working for him say he wasn't. And in support of the latter position: the American ambassador to Ukraine, in September 2015, complained about Ukraine's failure to cooperate with the British investigation into Zlochevsky, in a public speech in Odessa.
And thirdly, the Zlochevsky/Burisma investigation was focused on events prior to Burisma's high-profile BoD recruitments of Hunter Biden, Alexander Kwasniewski and others in 2014. So Hunter Biden wasn't personally at risk in that investigation.
As I've mentioned in one of the earlier replies, I would agree that the Obama government shouldn't have let Joe Biden take such an active role on Shokin or Ukraine in general under the circumstances. Especially considering his son and brother's track record. But he's not the one who decided Shokin had to go - and there's no reason that I know of to believe that Shokin's staying or going would personally affect the Biden family, both because it's not clear he was actually any threat to Burisma/Zlochevsky, and because that investigation didn't threaten Hunter Biden personally.
I would accept your analogy if you actually had evidence showing:
- that the joint EU/US/IMF position on firing Shokin was entirely or largely based on Joe Biden's personal position
- and that funding actually was withheld, and if so, without the required notifications to Congress
The latter, I don't actually know, I would be surprised but I don't rule it out. But the former is pretty preposterous, so that would require rather solid proof before I'll believe it.
Two wrongs don't make a right; if your accusations against Joe Biden were true, then I agree he would've been guilty of essentially the same thing as Trump and should have faced the same legal consequences (I would personally say impeachment, but clearly there are a lot of people in Congress who don't actually think such actions warrant impeachment).
And for what it's worth, I do think that if a whistleblower back in 2015-2016 had brought to light evidence showing that indeed Shokin was on the verge of creating legal trouble for Hunter Biden, and that Joe Biden was personally behind the anti-Shokin stance and had convinced not only the US government but also the EU and IMF to go along with it, it would have resulted in a scandal that could only have ended in Biden's resignation or firing - or his impeachment, if for whatever strange reason neither of the other two happened.
I've basically covered the Ukrainian side of these above, so will skip a bit.
Regarding all your complaints about Lutsenko: see link. Seems Lutsenko was only too happy to investigate Burisma and get Giuliani all the dirt he wanted - as long as he was getting what he wanted in return.
The whistleblower complaint was filed on August 12th, so your timeline is off by several weeks. Either way, the whistleblower ceased to be relevant the minute the WH released their own summary of the call, providing obvious grounds for further investigation. I don't know a thing about Ciaramella, quite possibly he may have been anti-Trump, but since the WH summary made clear the same points he had flagged, you can't blame him for anything worse than being a tattle-tale. Considering the approaching deadline for the aid to be paid and the increasingly exasperated communications from the Pentagon to the OMB throughout August, I find it hard to see how the WH could have prevented the whole episode from becoming public knowledge in some other way, if he hadn't flagged it.
As for the point about Vindman, let's be serious: the State Department is understaffed enough as it is. If they had to fire everybody who thinks Trump is a moron, which incidentally I'm not aware Vindman ever said, Pompeo might find it rather challenging to do the work of thousands of people all by himself. Although to be fair, I do rather suspect Pompeo also thinks Trump is a moron.