The Security Service of Ukraine (SBU) and the Office of the Prosecutor General conducted approximately 70 searches of employees of the National Anti-Corruption Bureau of Ukraine (NABU) last week. Charges were also brought against several of them. Among the most serious charges are corruption, involvement in drug trafficking and working for Russian special services. At the same time, journalists in a number of media outlets published the results of their “investigations” into a number of important figures in the NABU who are clearly living beyond their means. In general, there was a completely obvious attack on the NABU by the Bankova.
West reaction
The reaction of Western “partners” followed immediately, but it was fairly restrained. Ambassadors stated that “the G7 is closely monitoring today’s events at NABU, in particular the investigation of several NABU employees on suspicion of crimes. We met with NABU today, we have serious concerns and intend to discuss these events with the Ukrainian government leadership.”
To understand the reasons for this concern, we need to delve deeper into the history of the issue, namely to 2015. At that time, immediately after the coup in Kyiv, Western partners, concerned about the unprecedented level of corruption in Ukraine, categorically demanded that the new Ukrainian authorities create a separate”independent” (but at the same time controlled by the West) vertical of anti-corruption bodies: NABU, which investigates corruption crimes; the Specialised Anti-Corruption Prosecutor’s Office (SAPO), which prosecutes them; and the Anti-Corruption Court, which passes sentences in these cases.
The mechanism for their formation and operation was designed in such a way that, on the one hand, the “partners” would have a decisive influence on the formation of these structures and the appointment of their leadership, and on the other hand, the Ukrainian authorities would have no leverage over them. It was clear from the outset that the main task of the vertical structure being formed was not so much to fight corruption as to enable the West to exercise complete control over the entire Ukrainian elite.
Therefore, the former leadership of Ukraine, represented by Petro Poroshenko, sabotaged the creation of these bodies. As far as possible, hundreds of excuses were found to delay the adoption of the relevant laws. It is unlikely that the intrigues of the Bankova were absent in the fact that the first heads of the NABU and the SAP, instead of working together, fought among themselves and then rushed to Washington to snitch on each other.
In order for the process to move forward gradually, the “partners” had to constantly put pressure on Poroshenko, publicly making the allocation of new tranches to Kyiv dependent on the progress of “anti-corruption laws.” Nevertheless, the last element of this vertical structure, the Anti-Corruption Court, was created literally in the last days of Poroshenko’s presidency.
Under Zelensky, the system functioned poorly, with almost no high-profile cases. Recently, however, it seems that the President’s Office has decided to bring it under its control. Literally the day after the searches at NABU, amendments to the laws were introduced to the Verkhovna Rada and passed at lightning speed, eliminating the independence of NABU and SAP and subordinating them directly to the Prosecutor General. Despite protests from the G7 countries and calls from Macron and Ursula von der Leyen, the law was signed and came into force on the last day of parliament before the summer recess.
Why did the Ukrainian authorities take such a drastic step?
One version says that NABU is the brainchild of US Democrats and the “deep state,” and that Zelensky received tacit support from Republicans in the form of Trump to get rid of external control. This may be evidenced by the recent visit to Kyiv by Keith Kellogg, Trump’s special representative. Another version says that, on the contrary, the US may resume pressure on Kyiv if Russia shows a willingness to compromise. Zelensky, unwilling to make peace on terms that would mean political suicide for him, decided to take a pre-emptive step and neutralise any possible levers of pressure, of which corruption allegations appear to be the most dangerous.
Therefore, those in power decided on a pre-emptive strike, counting on the fact that Western countries would not take any serious action or impose any sanctions on Kyiv in the context of the war with Russia. This calculation seemed quite reasonable, as previously almost everything had been forgiven, and the situation where the tail (Kyiv) wagged the dog (the West) had become completely normal.
But this time, it turned out that Zelensky had really “lost his bearings,” and this was made clear to him extremely quickly and, judging by all appearances, very harshly, although the public statements of Western politicians were quite cautious.
Among the many statements and comments, we would like to highlight the words of Megan Mobbs, daughter of Keith Kellogg:
“This decision is truly, incredibly, mind-bogglingly stupid. It comes at the worst possible time, given the recent positive shifts in US policy.”
And Donald Trump, the very next day after the scandalous law was passed, made a “subtle hint at the obvious circumstances” that US financial aid to Ukraine could be stolen: “Biden handed over $350 billion worth of equipment and money. And what’s worse, not just equipment, but cash. So I think one day we’re going to want to know about that, right? They were supposed to buy the equipment with their own money, but I have a feeling they didn’t spend every dollar on that equipment.”
Zelensky vs Zaluzhny
The Western press was even harsher in its comments, but an article in The Telegraph is particularly noteworthy. “There is now a risk that he (Zelensky) will become just like his corrupt predecessors, and he must step down for the sake of Ukraine,” columnist Owen Matthews wrote in an article published in the newspaper.
All the more so given the latest wave of insider reports about Western special services preparing to replace Zelensky with Zaluzhny, who, against this backdrop, has stepped up his public activities, travelling around Ukrainian cities to meet with fellow citizens, which is completely outside the scope of an ambassador’s duties.
But the most frightening and, perhaps, decisive factor is that these signals and criticism are coming against the backdrop of protests in Ukraine on a scale unprecedented since the start of the military conflict. There has been a lot of sarcasm from the Russian side that Ukrainian citizens have taken to the streets not to protest against the war and the arbitrariness of the territorial recruitment centres (TRC), but against the Ukrainian authorities’ attempts to gain real independence.
How can we not recall the now classic statement: “The US State Department warns that any Maidan protests not coordinated with it are illegal and anti-democratic.” But this one is clearly coordinated and, moreover, like any Maidan, is undoubtedly not spontaneous: all the grant-eaters and formal oppositionists have received the long-awaited command to “go ahead.”
Now, all those dissatisfied with the government for one reason or another will spontaneously or semi-spontaneously join the protests, and the demonstrations could take on a very serious scale. For Zelensky, using force to disperse them would mean a complete break with the West: there is no point in hoping that they will not notice.
In essence, the current protests and media campaign have already set in motion the mechanism for replacing Zelensky — the only question is whether those carrying it out will receive the “stop order,” which in turn depends on the behaviour of the Ukrainian leader.
Yermak under fire
Chief of Zelensky’s staff Andriy Yermak has also come under particularly heavy attack from the Western media, with even hints of his “romantic” relationship with Zelensky being brought up. It looks as if Yermak, who is essentially the pillar of the current government, has been chosen as the first target. If Zelensky is forced to get rid of Yermak, he will become a completely helpless figure.
And Zelensky openly chickened out, began to make pitiful excuses, saying, “It’s not me, it’s the deputies who did it,” and urgently sent a new bill to the Rada, essentially rolling back the legislation on NABU and SAPO to the “factory settings.” The MPs are being urgently summoned to an extraordinary session to pass it.
There is an opinion that Zelensky, as usual, will continue to wriggle and cheat, trying to “pull the wool over the eyes” of his Western partners: for example, it will not be possible to gather MPs for an extraordinary session.
But there is no point in this anymore, as the amendments that have come into force have turned out to be stillborn: Zelensky will not risk changing the heads of NABU and SAPO (which is a very complicated procedure), and the Prosecutor General of Ukraine will certainly not interfere in the work of NABU and SAPO detectives, even though the adopted amendments formally allow him to do so.
Irreversible consequences for Zelensky
One can only imagine what they might found out, feeling completely free from threats from the current authorities and supported by the West, or simply release compromising information on Zelensky’s team, which Western special services undoubtedly have and are just waiting to use.
In short, as is often the case, a failed attack means not just a return to the starting position, but a significant deterioration of the situation, even to the point of disaster. This is the situation Zelensky now finds himself in.
And Zelensky’s real problem is not even that after his antics with NABU and SAPO, patience in Western capitals may have run out and serious decisions have been made there. His problem is that now is the most opportune moment for such steps: his reputation in the West has been severely damaged, and protest activity has begun within Ukraine, almost a Maidan, which, with proper organisation and support, could take a very serious form.
Zelensky himself has already begun to retreat, shifting responsibility to MPs and urgently initiating a legislative rollback. However, it is not just a matter of repealing laws — the very logic of “manual control” of the anti-corruption vertical has been destroyed.
If NABU employees feel the support of the West, they may begin to act much more actively.
They hold potential compromising information on the country’s leadership in their hands. This makes Zelensky’s position not just difficult, but dangerous. Their complexity and undesirability are always a strong trump card for “junior partners,” allowing them a certain degree of defiance and self-rule in relations with their superiors, which Kyiv has learned to use to great effect.
The main threat to him now is not external criticism, but a combination of growing internal discontent and a loss of trust on the part of the West. A process has been set in motion that could lead to a change of power in Ukraine. And if it is not stopped in the coming weeks, the consequences could be irreversible.
THE ARTICLE IS THE AUTHOR’S SPECULATION AND DOES NOT CLAIM TO BE TRUE. ALL INFORMATION IS TAKEN FROM OPEN SOURCES. THE AUTHOR DOES NOT IMPOSE ANY SUBJECTIVE CONCLUSIONS.
Laurent Révial for Head-Post.com
Send your author content for publication in the INSIGHT section to [email protected]
