On December 20, 2021, the former president of Ukraine, Petro Poroshenko, was accused of treason and financing terrorists. Poroshenko allegedly abused his office to help the separatist regions in Donbas export coal to Ukraine, thus contributing to financing the rebel forces. This is not the first investigation involving the former president as either a witness or a defendant, but it is certainly the most serious. Poroshenko claims the inquiry is a political gunfight, and other voices have criticized the timing for making these allegations, considering the growing tensions on the Russian border. On the other hand, Poroshenko’s investigation might also turn out to be a litmus test for Ukraine’s determination to implement the judiciary reform, a much-needed prerequisite if the country is to follow in the footsteps of Western democracies it seeks to emulate.
The allegations facing Poroshenko: treason in favor of Russia, supporting separatists in the East, corruption
On December 20, 2021, Ukraine’s State Bureau of Investigations accused Petro Poroshenko of high treason and financing international terrorism. The accusations are extremely serious, all the more so as the prosecutors claim the former president had reportedly facilitated coal trade from the occupied regions, namely Luhansk and Donetsk, in the favor of certain businessmen with pro-Russian connections. The funds obtained from the illicit trade were used to support separatist forces in these regions over long periods of time. The prosecution also claims that, during his term in office, Poroshenko had purportedly abused his position to disrupt Ukraine’s coal imports and had the contracts replaced with coal supplies from the uncontrolled regions. According to the investigation, these actions can only be interpreted as designed to finance terrorist/terrorism – the terms Kiev uses to refer to the separatist regimes and their actions.
Basically, Petro Poroshenko had intervened, at the behest of Russian Federation representatives – experts point to solid evidence in this respect – to facilitate the trading of energy resources from the occupied regions. The coal purchased from Donbas was used not just to finance the separatist regimes, but also to keep Ukraine energy-reliant on its enemy. This is not just a trade issue or a corruption investigation, but a situation affecting Ukraine’s security as a whole, and by extension, one that could possibly impact regional security as well.
In order to better understand the legal consequences of these decisions, we should draw attention to two important background issues:
- In April 2014, Ukraine’s Security and Defense Council adopted a resolution titled “On urgent measures to combat the terrorist threat and preserve the territorial integrity of Ukraine”. This resolution was replaced in 2018 by the Joint Forces Operation, with the adoption of the law “On the reintegration of Donbas”. These legislative initiatives provide Kiev with a basis for taking such decisions as suspending trade with the occupied regions. This is an important aspect, considering the two regions are de jure part of Ukraine, so in theory, they continue to be part of Ukraine’s national market.
- Over December 26 – March 15, 2017, Ukraine saw a protest action titled “The Donbas Blockade”, whereby representatives of the opposition at the time sought to block rail connections with the Donetsk and Luhansk regions in order to prevent any form of trade with them. The blockade sparked a great deal of controversy: some people claimed this trade favored financial support for the separatist forces, while others warned that trade ensures the survival of the population, considering the serious conflict the two regions were involved in at the time. On March 15, 2017, under a resolution of Ukraine’s Security and Defense Council on suspending transport between Ukraine and the temporarily occupied regions of Luhansk and Donetsk, the decision-making process shifted to the highest level. The rail blockade (December 2016 – March 2017) also brought Petro Poroshenko at the center of the whole scandal. Poroshenko at the time was serving as president, and part of his political opponents (particularly those enrolled in the Svoboda and Samopomych parties, but also others) accused the president of sabotaging measures designed to safeguard national security.
Poroshenko complains he is the target of politically-instrumented investigations – a boost to the ex-president’s approval ratings
Poroshenko’s name has been tied to other scandals in the past. In one such case, a number of Poroshenko’s associates were indicted for their involvement in the purchase of overpriced military equipment, which left a dent in the state budget and encroached upon the country’s national defense strategy.
Petro Poroshenko denied involvement in any efforts or actions that facilitated top-level graft. The former president has repeatedly claimed that ongoing corruption inquiries targeting him are a political vendetta, and that the government’s actions against him simply prove why the current regime is so afraid of debunking myths about the successful management of home and external affairs, in particular with regard to securing international support for Ukraine’s cause, namely regaining control over its temporarily occupied territories. In brief, Petro Poroshenko suggests the current government is afraid of possible competition in the next round of elections.
According to the latest survey conducted by the Razumkov Center in Kiev, in the event of a presidential election, Petro Poroshenko would rank second, with six percent behind incumbent president, Volodymyr Zelensky. In the presidential runoff of 2019, Zelensky won against Poroshenko by a much larger margin.
A number of policies supported by Zelensky and adopted by Ukraine’s Rada (the withdrawal of immunity for high-ranking officials, the land code and others) were unsuccessful in preventing the president’s popularity from plummeting. The reasons behind this are diverse. Undoubtedly, the lack of experience displayed by Volodymyr Zelensky and his party, the Servant of the People, has been used by the much more experienced political parties in Kiev (among which the party led by Petro Poroshenko, the European Solidarity) in order to hinder the consolidation and development of a political movement that has built great momentum.
Upon his return to Ukraine, Petro Poroshenko has made a number of public appearances, stirring strong reactions on the local political scene. Poroshenko thanked the crowd of supporters who greeted him at the airport, talked to the media waiting for him in front of the court of law, and tried to keep the public spotlight on him by organizing press conferences at the headquarters of the Ukrainian Rada, where he was joined by his colleagues from the European Solidarity Party to criticize the public policies of the Parliament majority. Poroshenko made sure not to leave out threats to national security or blocking his participation in the NATO-Ukraine Council meeting: “Instead of fighting Putin, Zelensky is fighting Poroshenko”. Moreover, when he was again subpoenaed for a second deposition, Poroshenko refused to sign a statement and delivered a new public speech before his crowd of supporters, accusing Zelensky of sabotaging his activity and external visits whereby he is trying to secure military support for Ukraine’s cause.
Can Ukraine truly afford a scandal of such magnitude right now?
Weighing in all the risks and threats to its national security and territorial integrity, Ukraine is going through a very difficult period. The West has engaged in complex discussions with the Russian Federation in order to prevent a possible military aggression against Ukraine. In this context, a new question arises: is this a good time to trigger a domestic political scandal?
The answer is yes and no. It is, because Ukrainian society wants a sweeping reform of its political elite. This requires political will to implement anti-corruption reforms and measures, thus finalizing a number of inquiries that have been pending for many years, targeting people who have held top government positions. Furthermore, the creation of a judiciary untainted by political or economic interests could become a public statement for Moscow, proving that Ukraine has embarked on the path towards political and social progress. In a nutshell, political will to implement anti-corruption reforms, an equitable judiciary, reforms and sanctions for those who have damaged state interests – these are all solutions for resilient institutions, capable of mobilizing internal resources so as to cope with external threats. Naturally, the accusations brought against Petro Poroshenko are extremely serious, and the consequences of this political scandal must be carefully examined, not just by Ukrainians, but also by Ukraine’s external partners, who support Ukraine against Russia’s aggressions.
In this context however, it is equally important to analyze how Russia interprets the actions of Ukrainian leaders and what the Kremlin’s disinformation campaign focuses on in connection with the political developments in Ukraine. Moscow officials have no qualms about using this “domestic infighting” to discredit the authorities in Kiev, both in the territories controlled by the government, as well as in the separatist/occupied regions. The Kremlin describes the authorities as ultra-nationalist, incapable of solving domestic issues, or controlled by external forces. Despite the fact the authorities in Kiev have taken steps to minimize the impact of Russian disinformation, a great deal of strategies employed by politicians in order to stay ahead of the political curve have turned out to be extremely useful in thwarting such efforts.
The most recent scandal speaks volumes in this respect: a considerable number of platforms have emerged aimed at discussing the Zelensky-Poroshenko showdown in a different key – not just from the prospect of the fight against top-level graft, but also as an attempt to prevent a drop in the approval rating of a less experienced politician, one who is said to have already decided to seek a second term in office.
