Replaced the Constitutional Court: What is known about the four who signed the “expertise” against Poroshenko

On August 22, Petro Poroshenko’s lawyers reported that the authorities had fabricated a pseudo-expertise that accused the fifth President of starting the Russian invasion and discredited the changes to the Constitution on the NATO course. The case is headed by DBR investigator Yablonsky, who persecuted participants in the Revolution of Dignity under Yanukovych and now heads the department for Maidan affairs.

As the text of the document published online shows, it was signed by four experts from the Research Center for Forensic Expertise in the Sphere of Information Technology and Intellectual Property under the Ministry of Justice. However, their specialization does not give them the authority to conduct an examination of amendments to the Constitution or the prospects for Ukraine’s accession to NATO, as well as other foreign policy decisions or statements by certain politicians, officials and government figures.

To put it simply, the experts simply signed the text that was provided to them. The goal of this special operation is to accuse Poroshenko (who else?) of the fact that Ukraine is still not in NATO, and of the fact that he included the course for joining NATO in the Constitution, and of Russia attacking Ukraine in 2014 (when we were still non-aligned), and of the fact that in 2022 it began. of its territories. Absurd? Yes. It is very difficult to convince public opinion of it – that is why “expertise” was needed.

The signatories of this “worthless document” obviously did not plan to appear in the public sphere. But they were found .

So, the head of the “expert commission” is Aleksandr Viktorovich Kozlov, head of the military research sector of the forensic, engineering and military research laboratory. The retired military man began his service back in 1978 in the Soviet Army, and after retirement he became an expert. Officially, he specializes in military expertise. In particular, among the tasks of military expertise are the following: to determine “what actions (inactions) of the leadership (commanders, chiefs) led to the encirclement of units and subdivisions that were involved in the implementation of a combat mission in the combat zone? How and by whom exactly (leaders, commanders, chiefs) was the possibility of combat missions in the combat zone determined? What measures were taken to prevent encirclement and withdrawal from encirclement of units and subdivisions that were involved in the implementation of combat missions and were encircled?

The same specialization is indicated in the profile of Sergei Aleksandrovich Poluyanov, a forensic expert in the military research sector of the laboratory of criminalistic, engineering and military research. By the way, in one of his scientific articles he explains how strategy differs from long-term planning.

[cut_in_image_fullwidth img=”https://prm.ua/wp-content/uploads/2025/08/photo_2025-08-28_15-11-47.jpg” img_id=”1286284″ caption=”In the photo: Alexander Kozlov, Igor Shebalkov, Roman

“Characteristic features of strategic planning are also the absence of the assertion that the future must necessarily be better than the past,” the expert writes.

Roman Anatolyevich Momot is another signatory of the examination, a forensic expert in the military research sector of the laboratory of forensic, engineering and military research, specializing in the study of explosive devices.

The fourth expert is Igor Leonidovich Shebalkov, head of the forensic and engineering-technical research sector of the forensic, engineering-technical and military research laboratory, specializing in fires and explosions. In particular, he examines the circumstances of the origin and spread of fires and fire safety requirements, explosive devices, traces and circumstances of an explosion, technical operation of electrical equipment, ballistic examination of traces of weapons, traces of a shot and the situational environment of a shot, etc.

[cut_in_image_fullwidth img=”https://prm.ua/wp-content/uploads/2025/08/photo_2025-08-28_15-12-01.jpg” img_id=”1286278″ caption=”In the photo: Igor Shebalkov, Roman Momot”

It was these people who signed the conclusion that “the submission to the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine for consideration and the subsequent adoption” of the laws initiated by Poroshenko on the rejection of the non-aligned policy and the strategic course for joining NATO “did not provide an opportunity and did not contribute to Ukraine receiving a NATO Membership Action Plan, Ukraine’s further full membership in NATO, and in this area they did not stop there and moved on to formulating accusations.

“It turns out that back in 2014, by initiating the law on the renunciation of non-alignment, Poroshenko prevented the prevention of a full-scale invasion of the Russian Federation in 2022. This is not an interpretation of the contents of the document in his own words, this is a verbatim quote: “The untimeliness of Ukraine’s actions in Ukraine against Russian aggression. with the introduction to the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine of the bill “On Amendments to Certain Laws of Ukraine on Ukraine’s Refusal to Implement a Non-alignment Policy” …, with the signing of this Law of Ukraine that has already been adopted … indicates that Poroshenko P.A. is obstructing: assistance in increasing the level of Ukraine’s defense capability; the possibility of Ukraine gaining full membership in the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO); the timely adoption of measures to effectively repel the armed aggression of the Russian Federation against Ukraine; preventing the spread of Russian aggression to other territories of Ukraine, as well as preventing a full-scale invasion of the Russian Federation into Ukraine in 2022 and the subsequent offensive of the armed forces of the Russian Federation on the territory of Ukraine in 2022-2025. Such actions of P.A. Poroshenko are assessed by experts as having harmed the defense capability and sovereignty of Ukraine,” political observer Yuriy Vishnevsky analyzes the text of the document.

“And after this – the main conclusion. “All the above-mentioned actions” of Poroshenko, including the introduction of the course for NATO membership into the Constitution and three other laws, according to experts, did not contribute to increasing the level of defense capability, prevented the receipt of the NATO Membership Action Plan and further receipt of full membership in NATO. That is, four laws adopted in 2014-2019, it turns out, prevented the receipt of NATO membership. It turns out that we had a “real opportunity” to obtain this membership, but the rejection of non-alignment and the enshrinement of the desire for NATO membership in the Constitution deprived us of this opportunity,” the journalist writes.

“The non-application of Article 5 of the North Atlantic (Washington) Treaty of 04.04.1949 to Ukraine as a non-NATO member state is in a causal relationship with the temporary occupation by the Russian Federation during 2014-2025 of the sovereign territories of Ukraine, namely: the Autonomous Republic of the Kherson and Zaporizhia regions,” the experts claim in their “conclusions” on page 247.

As Poroshenko’s lawyer Ilya Novikov noted, such a practice of condemning opponents because of “correct examinations” has long been put on stream in Russia, and the Ukrainian authorities are only copying it. He also notes that the idea to tie Poroshenko to the Kharkiv agreements and blame him for starting the war belongs to the late Portnov. It was he who developed this scheme, and his followers continue to implement the project. In their attempt to annoy the opposition leader, the authorities turn everything upside down – and now the changes to the Constitution on Ukraine’s membership in the EU and NATO are becoming the cause of Putin’s war, which in fact began when Ukraine was non-aligned, and Poroshenko was not even president yet.

The issue is not about Poroshenko, Novikov states, but about the fact that tomorrow these four can sign any “expertise” against anyone else, and the “tailor’s” court will accept it.

It may happen that “military experts” will write conclusions against the combat commanders who saved Ukraine at the beginning of the invasion with the same zeal, therefore they are very much a hindrance to the authorities. At least the tools have already been worked out.