I've certainly learned more about the whole thing - some from you, some from all the research I had to do. But still in my view you're just taking some leaps of faith or assumptions that I'm really not going to share without solid evidence, which there doesn't seem to be, so I don't think there's much point in continuing to argue those points. Firstly, the idea that Shokin was such a particular threat to Burisma while the others in his position weren't. And secondly that Biden was the main driver behind the position on Shokin shared by the US and EU, as opposed to the entirely plausible arguments both were regularly making in public about why they wanted him out.
And without those, all that's left is Biden's boast (rather undermined by the timeline), Shokin's blatantly self-aggrandizing claims (which are contradicted by the people in his office), and the 'Burisma wouldn't have paid Hunter Biden so much if they weren't getting something solid in return' argument. That may be enough for you, but it's not for me.
From what I've read about Hunter Biden, he's... not particularly subtle about trying to make money off his dad's name. In case you hadn't read it yet, you should enjoy the linked article - and yes, I had read that before even starting this whole debate. But although the way Joe Biden has allowed his family to mooch off his career like that for decades certainly doesn't improve my opinion of him, the sad truth is that he's not exactly alone in that regard, and it's still not proof of him being personally corrupt.
I can give you links for high profile media like the Guardian criticizing Hunter Biden's new job at Burisma and implying shady dealings from the first moment his appointment was announced, back in 2014. If later on they could have gone further than that and shown actual crimes, I'm quite confident they would have, though you might not agree. But either way, it's a fact that his position there had been in the media spotlights from the start - which is why it would take a lot to convince me that Joe Biden could have arranged anything of importance (be it the Shokin ouster or something else) which materially helped Burisma without noticeably advancing US/EU interests, without setting off a scandal already at that time.
Not that I really dispute your point on the blind support for Ukraine at the time, certainly both parties as well as the EU turned a blind eye to the criminal activities of various Ukrainian politicians who they found useful to work with, but that's not the same as turning a blind eye to the criminal activities of the VP of the United States.