No Miniature Russia in Our Rear: A Warning Against Internal Authoritarianism
Source: Mykola Knyazhitsky’s Facebook page
Why I Support Returning Powers to NABU and SAPO — But Reject Government Control Over Them.
No, not because I consider NABU’s work effective. The fabricated case against Volodymyr Yemelyan, plea deals for some and refusal to negotiate with others, and the overall opacity of the anti-corruption system all create room for abuse.
I do not view corruption as the main problem and remain skeptical of some “anti-corruption activists” who have merely simulated vigorous activity to secure funding from partners. However, the current circumstances justify—even if only partially—such often speculative efforts.
This paradox arose because the government sacrificed Ukraine’s European future and independence for its thirst for control. Everything has its limits.
The independence of NABU and SAP was once a condition for visa-free travel. Now, it has become a condition for financial assistance and the opening of negotiation clusters for EU accession.
In reality, after the parliamentary scandal, European integration has been put on hold. Why? Hungary and other countries aligned with Moscow’s interests proposed dividing the path to the EU between Ukraine and Moldova, meaning Moldova is ready, but Ukraine is not.
Some countries, notably Poland (but not only), have so far vetoed Hungary’s proposals. After the law subordinating NABU and SAP to the authorities was passed, these vetoes will no longer hold. Ukraine’s European integration will stall.
The problem is that even in countries friendly to us, like Poland, many politicians—under domestic public pressure—believe Ukraine’s EU accession would create competition for them. They will not openly oppose integration, but if Ukraine itself provides grounds—such as failing to meet the Copenhagen criteria—the process will simply be stopped. This is happening now. And the government fails to recognize it.
It is not only because it wants to close the Mindich and Chernyshev cases.
Having control not only over the Security Service, the State Bureau of Investigation, and the police, but also over the anti-corruption bodies, the government believes it will protect itself and persecute the opposition. This is an illusion.
To prevent this, those who defend democracy in Ukraine must act not along partisan lines, but united in defense of shared values.
Of course, it is necessary to resume broadcasting of the Verkhovna Rada. It is equally important to protect the owner of Ukrainska Pravda, Tomas Fiala, and the advertisers of Ukrainska Pravda and NV from pressure by the authorities.
At the same time, sanctions against Petro Poroshenko and all other Ukrainian citizens who have been targeted solely to seize their businesses or diminish their political influence must be lifted immediately.
The channels Espresso, Pryamyi, and Pyaty must be restored to the air without delay. They were taken off the air illegally, through gangster-style tactics. If these channels can be silenced, then why should Ukrainska Pravda be spared closure?
Democracy means the rule of law and equality before the law. If the authorities fail to understand this, democratic politicians, journalists, and civil society must unite—regardless of political differences—to defend democracy for all, not just for themselves.
Here is another example: the son of businessman Konstantin Zhevago is an indirect co-owner of the Espresso channel. The issue with Espresso is not its opposition stance—according to IMI, the channel operates according to journalistic standards—but rather its independence from control. That is why Zhevago faces pressure.
There are other motivations at play: it is convenient to “fight oligarchs” by appropriating their property under this pretext, especially when sanctions can be imposed on Ukrainian citizens without trial, investigation, or explanation.
Anyone can be accused of “working for Russia”—from the head of NABU to the President—without any need to provide proof.
For example, Konstantin Zhevago was recently accused of collaborating with Russia due to alleged ties between his company, Arterium, and Russian entities. The director of the Lviv-based plant Galichpharm was even detained and placed in custody without bail.
Just days ago, he was charged with aiding an aggressor state.
However, immediately after the full-scale invasion, the Ukrainian company refused to operate in Russia. It withdrew from all projects, including its brands registered in Russia, effectively ending any possibility of returning to the Russian market. This was the only reasonable course of action, and it was precisely what Galichpharm’s director, Oleksandr Blonsky, did in 2022.
So, how degraded must Ukraine’s law enforcement system be to interpret this as complicity with Russia’s war against Ukraine? This may sound absurd, if it weren’t the reality unfolding now in Ukraine.
The Pechersk District Court—considered one of Ukraine’s “most honest” courts—ordered the arrest of a Lviv businessman at the request of the SBU, accusing him of harming Ukraine and aiding Russia by refusing to participate in the Russian market.
Aiding an aggressor state is indeed a grave crime, carrying a minimum sentence of 10 years. Naturally, if someone genuinely assists Russia in waging war against Ukraine, justice must take its course.
But what could undermine the credibility of the SBU and Ukraine’s entire law enforcement system more than unjustly branding individuals—who have spent years building their reputations—as traitors without any evidence?
Since the full-scale invasion began, Galichpharm, under Oleksandr Blonsky’s leadership, has donated aid worth 55 million hryvnias to support the Armed Forces of Ukraine, hospitals, and local communities. The company has received numerous awards and acknowledgments from the Ministry of Defense, medical institutions, and civic organizations.
Why destroy a person’s reputation by baselessly accusing them of such a serious crime against Ukraine?
How can anyone so disrespect the dedication of SBU personnel, who perform heroic deeds both at the front and beyond, as to devalue their work with such senseless actions behind the scenes?
We have grown accustomed to hearing about how the FSB imprisons innocent people in Russia. Yet, the fact that Ukrainian law enforcement could employ the same oppressive methods on our soil is utterly unacceptable.
This war is fought to prevent Russia’s influence from taking root here. We cannot allow a miniature Russia to be cultivated in our rear, especially not by the very institutions entrusted to uphold the law, which instead risk turning into a Ukrainian version of the FSB.
A state in which any law enforcement officer is capable of sending any person to a pretrial detention center without any evidence has no future. Sooner or later, the war will end, and Ukraine will seek to attract private investors for reconstruction. A country in which any businessman is under threat of arrest without any legal grounds will not be needed by anyone.
Let us recall that on July 22, the Verkhovna Rada voted for a bill that significantly limits the powers of the National Anti-Corruption Bureau (NABU) and the Specialized Anti-Corruption Prosecutor’s Office (SAPO), effectively subordinating their activities to the Prosecutor General, and Volodymyr Zelenskyy signed it.
The Verkhovna Rada’s support for Bill No. 12414, which effectively deprives the SAP of independence and could limit the powers of NABU, has caused serious concern in the European Union . This decision will affect the annual assessment of Ukraine’s progress towards EU membership, which the European Commission will publish in October.
In addition, U.S. Senate members Jeanne Shaheen and Lindsey Graham expressed concern about a recently passed law in Ukraine that they said weakens the independence of anti-corruption institutions by subordinating them to the prosecutor general.
It should be noted that society reacted negatively to the actual destruction of anti-corruption bodies. On July 22 and 23, hundreds of people in many Ukrainian cities took to the streets to protest against Law No. 12414.
Subsequently, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky submitted to the Verkhovna Rada a law on “strengthening the powers of NABU and SAP” . The document stipulates that the Prosecutor General and his deputies do not have the right to give instructions to prosecutors of the Specialized Anti-Corruption Prosecutor’s Office. The Prosecutor General is also prohibited from influencing the work of NABU detectives.
Also, follow “Pryamyi” on Facebook, Twitter, Telegram, and Instagram.
• Materials published in the “THOUGHTS” section reflect the opinion of the author of the publication, who bears full responsibility for the accuracy of the information.
• The editors of prm.ua may not share the opinions expressed in the author’s material.
• The owner of the web page in the “THOUGHTS” section is the author of the publication.