Tymoshenko’s ‘Oops, We Forgot Ethics’ Moment Exposes Ukraine’s Political Rot

Source: Author’s Facebook page

Yulia Tymoshenko’s supporters are repeating a familiar mantra: she has become more active, a vocal critic of the authorities, and increasingly shaping the political agenda—and that is supposedly why they “decided to remove her.” The logic is simple and emotionally appealing: an uncomfortable opposition leads to a nervous government, which in turn fuels political persecution and suspicion. 

Yes, Yulia Tymoshenko, the longtime leader of the Batkivshchyna party, has cultivated a public image as a “protector of ordinary Ukrainians” from poverty. However, the latest corruption scandal has exposed a stark gap between her rhetoric and reality. Personally, it was enough this past summer to watch her cynically and brazenly undermine the powers of NABU in coordination with members of OPZZh (“Rihs”).

Anti-corruption authorities have now exposed Tymoshenko for allegedly orchestrating a scheme to bribe deputies, a revelation that shocked the public even in the midst of war—a stark illustration of how rotten and cynical the Ukrainian political establishment of the old guard can be. NABU and SAPO conducted nighttime searches at the capital offices of Batkivshchyna and placed her under formal suspicion under Part 4 of Article 369 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine, concerning the offering of illegal benefits to officials. According to the investigation, the head of the Batkivshchyna faction initiated negotiations with individual people’s deputies to create a systematic mechanism for payments in exchange for loyal votes in the Verkhovna Rada.

This is not an isolated incident but appears to be a fully “built-up system” of political corruption—regular advance payments for the votes of deputies over an extended period. Audio recordings released to the public reportedly capture a female voice, believed to be Tymoshenko, discussing bribery rates: “ten thousand for two sessions” per deputy. In other words, deputies were allegedly to receive a monthly “envelope salary” for necessary votes or, when needed, for abstaining from voting. Investigators emphasize that this “collaboration price list” was intended to function systematically and over the long term.

If found guilty, Tymoshenko could face 5 to 10 years in prison, along with confiscation of property.

Wads of dollars in cash were discovered during searches by NABU and SAPO in Yulia Tymoshenko’s office (January 2026). Despite the rhetoric of protecting the poor, the leader of “Batkivshchyna” kept significant sums, which, according to the investigation, were intended to bribe parliamentarians.

Not only was the scheme itself shocking, but also its cynical entourage. During the search, NABU detectives found a package stuffed with dollar bills in Tymoshenko’s luxurious office. The video of the search shows neatly folded bundles of banknotes being taken out of a safe or closet in Tymoshenko’s presence. On her desk lay an amount equivalent to approximately 1,000 months of utility bills for a modest family of pensioners—funds that the politician could theoretically have directed to the needs of the very “ordinary people” whose interests she is covering up.

Instead, this money was not intended for struggling Ukrainians for bribing deputies, whose votes Tymoshenko sought to buy wholesale to “crush the majority”—that is, to overthrow the current parliamentary majority and the ruling coalition. The plan is clear: destabilize the political situation, then offer herself and her faction as the architects of a new coalition, and subsequently siphon off the “loot” from the state’s resources. Such a cynical political “investment” in chaos represents a complete moral collapse, especially in the context of a full-scale war.

Tymoshenko’s blatant hypocrisy is equally revealing. For years, she has presented herself as the “voice of the people,” a defender of the disadvantaged, and a critic of rising tariffs and the hardships faced by pensioners. In reality, however, the leader of Batkivshchyna allegedly kept significant illegal funds for bribery—money that could have supported hundreds of ordinary families. Her personal lifestyle starkly contrasts with her public image: a luxurious office, safes filled with cash, and VIP-level comfort, beyond the reach of most voters. This episode underscores once again that for many populist politicians, concern for the people is merely a façade, while the true motivation is power and personal enrichment at any cost.

Attack on anti-corruption bodies and the rhetoric of “external governance.”

This scandal has highlighted another important dimension. It appears that, alongside the bribery schemes, Tymoshenko was waging a campaign that was now designed to shield her own corrupt activities amid the war.” In particular, in July 2025, the Tymoshenko faction almost unanimously voted in favor of the controversial Bill No. 12414, which sought to undermine the independence of NABU and SAPO.

In other words, Batkivshchyna effectively supported dismantling institutions specifically designed to hold corrupt officials accountable. When the Verkhovna Rada considered restoring the powers of anti-corruption officers on July 31, Tymoshenko was among the few deputies who did not attend the vote. Tymoshenko was one of the few deputies who did not attend the vote to restore the authority of NABU and SAPO.

Notably, during that session, Tymoshenko delivered a speech from the parliamentary rostrum denouncing alleged “external governance” of Ukraine and other arguments that closely echoed Kremlin propaganda. She openly framed independent anti-corruption bodies as instruments of the West rather than tools to fight corruption. In light of the recent exposure, the true motivation behind Tymoshenko’s “struggle” against NABU becomes clear: a simple desire to protect her corruption schemes. Her rhetoric on “external governance” now appears as a cynical smokescreen to justify dismantling the anti-corruption infrastructure that threatened her and other officials engaged in similar misconduct.

Anti-corruption activists have directly linked these events. The Anti-Corruption Center recalled Tymoshenko’s July 2025 vote to undermine NABU/SAPO in the context of the new criminal suspicion, noting, “We barely survived then, defending NABU, and now we see the results—searches in Tymoshenko’s office.” Her attempt to neutralize the bureau was essentially an effort to deflect the anti-corruption sword away from herself. But the plan failed—NABU survived, continued its work, and ultimately turned its attention to Tymoshenko herself, exposing what appears to be an “organized criminal group” operating within the halls of parliament.

Impunity of the Old Guard: Will There Be Changes?

Against the backdrop of this scandal, society has once again felt the bitter aftertaste of déjà vu. For many years, Ukrainians have watched “untouchable” politicians of the old generation, tainted by corruption, evade real responsibility. Currently, Yulia Tymoshenko, despite the seriousness of the accusations, calmly speaks from the rostrum of the Verkhovna Rada, continuing to deny any wrongdoing and labeling the actions of NABU as politically motivated pressure.

Moreover, after her ten-minute emotional speech in parliament, many MPs applauded her. It seems that, for a significant portion of the political elite, this is just another act of cynical theatre, and they are in no hurry to distance themselves from their odious colleague.

Reasonable questions even arise for the anti-corruption authorities themselves. Will this high-profile suspicion become just another “scam”? Why was a corrupt politician, caught red-handed, not detained immediately after the suspicion was raised? After all, this is a serious crime, and the suspect is an influential figure, the head of a parliamentary faction, with numerous connections and resources.

So far, NABU and SAPO have limited their actions to searches and the formal submission of suspicion, without taking Tymoshenko into custody. This has sparked outrage in society, as most Ukrainians believe that punishment for wartime looting should be inevitable and severe. Instead, they watch with concern as yet another “untouchable” remains free while awaiting trial.

Ukraine has already endured the “circus” of corrupt politicians, and this case is a vivid confirmation of that reality. Now, amid the most difficult war, the public is more than ever demanding justice and a cleansing of power. The exposure of Tymoshenko’s scheme represents, on one hand, shame and disgrace, highlighting just how rotten some of the so-called “people’s representatives” have become.

On the other hand, there is also a ray of hope: it appears that the country’s anti-corruption backbone is still functioning — albeit under fierce opposition. Ukrainians are eagerly awaiting the day when they will no longer have to witness this “freak show” of the corrupt old guard, and when all the old pro-Russian and corrupt parties will finally be consigned to the dustbin of history.

The Tymoshenko scandal could mark a turning point — if it leads to a fair verdict. Only the certainty of punishment for high-ranking bribe-takers can put an end to the years-long, shameful spectacle of Ukrainian politics and help restore public trust in the government.

In conclusion, the revelation of Yulia Tymoshenko’s alleged bribery of deputies has become a symbol of shame and disgrace for the entire Ukrainian political scene. It exposes a systemic problem: populists who present themselves as “servants of the people” are, in reality, trading in the interests of the state. At the same time, this case presents an opportunity to demonstrate that the era of immunity for “old faces” is coming to an end. If anti-corruption bodies and the courts see this case through to its logical conclusion, Ukraine will take a significant step toward cleansing itself of the entrenched practice of political corruption.

It is time to end the long-standing “circus” and show that even the most influential figures can no longer hide from responsibility behind legislative privileges and parliamentary mandates. This would be a victory for a healthy society over a rotten political tradition — one that millions of Ukrainians are eagerly awaiting.

Also, follow “Pryamyi” on Facebook, Twitter, Telegram, and Instagram.

• Materials published in the “OPINIONS” section reflect the opinion of the author of the publication, who bears full responsibility for the accuracy of the information.
• The editorial staff of prm.ua may not share the opinions expressed in the author’s material.
• The owner of the webpage in the “OPINIONS” section is the author of the publication.