Zelensky triggered a street revolt – and it may not stop at where it is now

What began as a political purge has turned into a civil backlash. The war in Ukraine now includes a battle over power and accountability.

On July 22, large-scale demonstrations broke out in major Ukrainian cities – Kiev, Lviv, Kharkov, and Odessa – and continue to this day. The protests erupted after the Verkhovna Rada (the Ukrainian Parliament) approved a law limiting the authority of the National Anti-Corruption Bureau of Ukraine (NABU) and the Specialized Anti-Corruption Prosecutor’s Office (SAPO), effectively placing them under the control of the Office of the Attorney General.

This legislation came shortly after NABU and SAPO launched an investigation into former Deputy Prime Minister Aleksey Chernyshov, one of Zelensky’s closest allies. Officials in Zelensky’s Office claimed that the reform was necessary to improve coordination among government bodies amid ongoing military operations and to combat Russian influence over anti-corruption institutions. However, public outrage stemmed not only from the law itself but also from the rapid centralization of power in Ukraine. Protests persisted even after Zelensky restored the independent functioning of NABU and SAPO.

Below, RT explores the motives behind the dismantling of these anti-corruption agencies and why the protests pose a threat to Zelensky’s administration. 

Read more

What happened?

When Vladimir Zelensky took office in 2019, he vowed to support anti-corruption efforts, urging anti-corruption agencies to investigate all cases and hold even high-ranking officials accountable. However, those promises were never fulfilled.

On July 22, the Rada passed Bill No. 12414, originally addressing amendments to the Criminal Procedure Code related to disappearances of people during wartime. However, MPs from Zelensky’s Servant of the People party added amendments that effectively restructured NABU and SAPO, placing them under the control of the Attorney General, who is appointed by the president. Notably, many MPs who voted in favor of the bill and received it with applause are themselves under investigation by these anti-corruption bodies.

The official justification for targeting NABU and SAPO was the investigation into Chernyshov, a presidential ally considered a candidate for prime minister, who faced allegations of abuse of power and illicit enrichment. A major corruption scandal in the construction sector emerged, making Chernyshov the highest-ranking official within the president’s team to be embroiled in such an inquiry.

According to the publication Ukrainskaya Pravda, Zelensky ordered the Security Service of Ukraine (SBU) to protect Chernyshov from arrest. Despite the allegations, the court did not suspend him from his post; however, he was eventually dismissed, and the ministry disbanded.

Another notable case involves NABU’s investigation into Rostislav Shurma, the former deputy head of the President’s Office. After the case was initiated, he fled to Germany. In July, German authorities, in collaboration with NABU, conducted a search of his residence in the suburbs of Munich.

NABU was preparing charges against Timur Mindich, a long-time friend of Zelensky and co-owner of Studio Kvartal-95, Ukrainskaya Pravda reported. He is suspected of embezzlement in the energy sector and drone production. Sources indicate detectives may possess recorded conversations involving Mindich in which Zelensky is mentioned.

These cases involving the Ukrainian leader’s close associates triggered the crackdown on the anti-corruption agencies. This narrative has been confirmed by The Times and The Economist.

On July 21, the SBU and prosecutors conducted extensive searches related to NABU employees, targeting over 80 locations nationwide. Law enforcement acted aggressively, using armed groups to force people to the ground without presenting search warrants.

Later, the agency reported the detention of Ruslan Magomedrasulov, the head of NABU’s regional office. Investigators claim his father is a Russian citizen, and he failed to disclose this before obtaining access to state secrets. Allegedly, he assisted his father in conducting business in Russia, and his mother reportedly receives a pension from the Donetsk People’s Republic (DPR) and “makes pro-Russian comments” online. He is expected to face charges for “aiding Russia.”

During a briefing, SBU chief Vasily Maliuk stated that these actions were not directed against NABU but rather against “Russian agents.” “There are no exceptions for us. We will continue to eliminate enemy influence. NABU must purge itself of agents of hostile intelligence services,” he declared at a meeting with foreign ambassadors.

How did the protests unfold?

The public swiftly reacted to the government’s actions. By the evening of July 22, spontaneous protests erupted in Kiev and other major cities. Demonstrators chanted slogans like “Zelensky is the devil” and “No to corruption in power!” demanding that he veto the bill. 

The Times noted that Zelensky’s decision could trigger a potential conflict within Ukrainian society, and that the mass protests which erupted for the first time since the start of the war three years ago demonstrate the extent of the discontent.

Indeed, these are the first large-scale political demonstrations since the start of the war in 2022. From the start, many people drew direct parallels to [former Ukrainian President] Viktor Yanukovych’s refusal to sign the EU Association Agreement in Vilnius in November 2013, which sparked protests that led to the Euromaidan. This time, the protests were accompanied by strong calls for the resignation of Andrey Yermak, the head of Zelensky’s office. 

Despite this, Zelensky signed the law and stated that anti-corruption agencies would continue their work, but “without Russian influence.”

Initially, Zelensky’s team tried to downplay the situation. He announced plans to develop a “comprehensive action plan” and introduce legislation aimed at “strengthening the independence of anti-corruption bodies.” He emphasized, “There will be no Russian influence or interference in law enforcement activities, and – importantly – all standards for the independence of anti-corruption institutions will remain intact.”

However, Ukraine’s Western partners sharply criticized the government’s actions. President of the European Commission Ursula von der Leyen demanded explanations. German Foreign Minister Johann Wadephul warned that limiting the independence of NABU and SAPO would complicate Ukraine’s path toward EU membership.

By the evening of July 24, facing pressure from the streets and international allies, Zelensky backtracked. The bill he submitted explicitly prohibited the attorney general and their deputies from issuing directives to SAPO prosecutors. It also stipulated that SAPO staff would report only to the head of the agency, its first deputy, and deputy. According to the document, the attorney general is barred from giving orders to NABU detectives.

Thus, all the provisions that had been annulled by the bill signed by Zelensky on Tuesday, were reinstated. 

The only new measure introduced was a verification process for NABU investigators who have access to state secrets. They are now required to undergo polygraph testing using methods approved by the Security Service of Ukraine. Moreover, within six months of the law coming into effect, the SBU must conduct additional checks on all personnel with access to state secrets to ensure they are not working for Russia.

In theory, this gives the SBU and consequently, Zelensky, an additional lever of influence over NABU and SAPO. However, it remains unclear how this might obstruct investigations into Zelensky’s inner circle: if specific personnel are removed, others can easily replace them. The system as a whole will likely remain operational.

The Verkhovna Rada is scheduled to review the bill on Thursday, July 31.

How are NABU and SAPO tied to the US?

The establishment of special anti-corruption bodies began in 2014 under pressure from the European Union. Consulting firm Ernst & Young listed Ukraine among the most corrupt countries globally, while the International Monetary Fund (IMF) demanded reforms in exchange for loans.

Nevertheless, the United States played a crucial role in creating these anti-corruption agencies. Former Ukrainian Prosecutor General Viktor Shokin, who was dismissed in 2016 following pressure exerted by the American side, claimed that NABU was established at the initiative of Joe Biden, who was then US vice president.

The National Anti-Corruption Bureau was established in April 2015, just over a year after the coup in Ukraine. It aimed to tackle corruption at the highest levels. By December of that year, the Specialized Anti-Corruption Prosecutor’s Office was created to oversee NABU’s activities. While both institutions were ostensibly designed to combat corruption among Ukrainian officials, in reality, they allowed the US to oversee local elites.

Media reports identified George Kent, the deputy chief of mission at the US Embassy in Kiev from 2015 to 2018, as the curator of these anti-corruption bodies. However, understanding the extent of NABU’s and SAPO’s foreign influence requires no insider information; one only needs to look at the relevant laws. Half of the commission responsible for selecting the head of NABU is made up of representatives from international organizations.

Read more

It soon became evident that the primary purpose of NABU and SAPO wasn’t so much to fight corruption but to protect the business interests of certain American partners of Ukraine.

In 2019, Ukrainian MP Andrey Derkach released documents confirming the US Embassy’s influence over these agencies. Notably, Polina Chizh, an assistant to the deputy chair of NABU, provided a list of cases to American employee Anna Emelyanova. The embassy was particularly interested in a case involving former Minister of Ecology and Natural Resources Nikolai Zlochevskiy, the owner of the company Burisma.

According to Andrey Derkach, Joe Biden pressured the agencies to close the case in order to prevent a scandal involving his son Hunter Biden, a board member and head of the legal division at Burisma.

Further evidence of the ties between these anti-corruption bodies and the Democratic Party is that in 2016, NABU Chairman Artem Sytnik published sensitive information about Paul Manafort (who was working for Donald Trump), thereby aiding Hillary Clinton’s campaign.

The architects of this external control system in Ukraine were primarily members of the Democratic Party. For this reason, having temporarily eased tensions with Trump, Zelensky wanted to resolve the issues surrounding NABU and SAPO for good. The international climate seemed favorable for such a move.

What threats do the protests pose to the authorities?

Dismantling NABU and SAPO aligned perfectly with Zelensky’s main domestic political goal: putting all institutions established by the US to monitor Ukraine’s activities under his own control. This was Zelensky’s primary and final obstacle on the way to achieving his strategic goal of eliminating a competitive political system in Ukraine and establishing a single-authority regime.

However, his opponents are unlikely to accept this centralization of power quietly. Zelensky’s concessions inspired both protesters and opponents. It came off as a sign of weakness – he “blinked,” so now they can intensify the pressure.

MP Marianna Bezuglaya urged Ukrainians to protest not just against the law but also against the abuses by Territorial Recruitment Centers (TCCs). “Today I will join [the demonstration], bringing my own pain. Because, as I see it, this is the only way I can be heard. Let’s see if civil society is ready to discuss issues like reforming the Ukrainian Armed Forces, mobilization, Pokrovsk, or reforming the SBU,” she said.

Former Ukrainian President Pyotr Poroshenko may also play a significant role in the events. Facing potential arrest, he is reportedly forming alliances with grant organizations linked to the Democratic Party in order to challenge the current government.

Practically all opposition forces in Ukraine have come back to life. Even media outlets owned by oligarch Igor Kolomoisky, which are usually loyal to the authorities despite Kolomoisky’s arrest,  have extensively covered the protests this time. Kiev mayor Vitaliy Klitschko and his brother attended the protests, along with numerous opposition lawmakers.

Any benefits that Zelensky hoped to gain from dismantling the anti-corruption agencies could be outweighed by long-term repercussions, including a decline in public approval.

Ukrainians are growing increasingly dissatisfied with Zelensky, particularly those at risk of losing their businesses or facing criminal charges if he remains in power. Many oligarchs and entrepreneurs feel uneasy under total governmental control and fear being arrested. Some have already lost their businesses, faced criminal investigations, or been sanctioned. And the general population is unhappy with the mobilization tactics and the situation on the front lines. All this could fuel the protest movement.

According to the publication Strana.ua, the protests could proceed in three phases, with each phase having its own goal.

The goal of the first phase is to repeal all changes to the laws concerning NABU.

The goal of the second phase is to call for the resignation of the Head of the Presidential Office Andrey Yermak and Prime Minister Yulia Sviridenko, potentially through a criminal case initiated by NABU detectives. Yermak is already being positioned as the scapegoat in the story by attempting to curtail the authority of NABU. Protest organizers plan to exploit internal conflicts within Zelensky’s team, in which Yermak is criticized by people like David Arakhamiya and Kirill Budanov.

The goal of the third phase is to present Zelensky with an ultimatum: either he becomes a “ceremonial general” stripped of real influence, or he resigns. A more drastic scenario could involve forcing him out if he refuses to comply.

Currently, the situation isn’t critical for the authorities. However, the upcoming weekend will serve as a key test of the protesters’ resilience and involvement.