So you want me to believe that Joe Biden first manipulated the Obama administration and State Department into going after Shokin, then while he was it snookered the EU into it as well, and managed to get all parties involved to make it sound like it was their own idea all along, without anyone anywhere piping up to say that actually no, we all just loved Shokin until Joe Biden came and made us get him ousted?

From what I can tell, your entire case rests on a) Joe Biden's own boasts, which rather skip over the three months that passed between his supposed threats and Shokin's firing, and b) Shokin's sour grapes and self-aggrandizing accusations after he was fired. That's pretty thin. Especially since the other key point in the theory - that Shokin was posing a particular threat to Burisma's interests - also seems largely based on Shokin's own statements, at least from what I've seen so far. I've seen more about Lutsenko taking action against Burisma and fining them than about Shokin doing so.

Regarding the timeline, I was looking for articles concerning Shokin, who only was appointed to that post in February 2015.

What Burisma aimed to achieve by appointing Hunter Biden to their BoD is one thing. Whether Joe Biden actually did anything untoward as a consequence is quite another - and would require actual evidence on the points I've been mentioning. I note you didn't really answer my question about what you're hoping to find on that point in Ukraine, rather than in the US, or in Brussels when it comes to the EU's position.

And I have to say, every time you revert to points on how blatantly obvious it seems to you that after Burisma hired Hunter Biden, his dad's boasts about Shokin must be clear evidence of corruption, my gut reaction is that the blatantness of it makes it less probable, not more. The international media certainly did report quite critically, back in 2014, on Hunter Biden's appointment at Burisma and what impact it might have on his dad's interactions with Ukraine. After that, I just don't buy that Joe Biden could've openly gone and set the Obama administration's Ukraine policy in the direction desired by Burisma, without setting off a massive scandal.

That he might have had personal motivations to support a policy against Shokin which was already being pushed independently for different reasons, well, that's one of those unproveables again. Whether he did or not, he ought to have recused himself to avoid the appearance that he did. But just because he failed to recuse himself, doesn't mean he's the one who determined the policy.

So what are they getting from Kwasniewski? What are they getting from the top CIA guy and GW Bush-era State Department official still on their board?

So are you just making a general point about the power of the US here, or are you specifically claiming that yes, the Obama administration (which, under your theory, I suppose means Joe Biden personally) specifically chose Lutsenko and forced Poroshenko to appoint him? Which then proved to be a rather poor choice, still supposing the goal was to protect Burisma, after Lutsenko investigated Burisma both publicly and behind closed doors through his back-channel communications with Giuliani?

It's not so much that I don't believe the US could force Ukraine to appoint a specific person if they wanted to, it's more that I don't believe they wanted to. It's one thing to interfere in your supposed ally's affairs by insisting that somebody who's clearly not performing in a very important job is removed (that was, at least, their widely publicly stated motivation - you can believe what you like about alternate motivations), but quite another to handpick the replacement.