By Independent News Roundup
By Vitaly Ryumshin, journalist and political analyst - RT: © Dasha Zaitseva / Gazeta.Ru
The corruption scandal that has dominated Ukrainian politics for weeks has finally reached its first major endpoint. Under mounting domestic and international pressure, Vladimir Zelensky has dismissed Andrey Yermak, his chief of staff, closest confidant, and the de facto second-most powerful man in the country. For years, Yermak was widely viewed as the grey cardinal of Ukrainian politics. Together with businessman Timur Mindich, he allegedly oversaw a sprawling corruption network in the energy and defense sectors, operating under the nicknames “Ali Baba” and “Alla Borisovna.”
The significance of Yermak’s removal is difficult to overstate. If anything of consequence happened in Ukraine after February 2022, Yermak was usually at the center of it. He was Zelensky’s principal political engineer, building a vertical of power that effectively sidelined the speaker of the Verkhovna Rada and concentrated authority inside the presidential office. It was Yermak who placed loyalists throughout government ministries, security bodies, and regional administrations; who orchestrated campaigns against political rivals; who disrupted elements of local self-government; and who led the quiet purge of figures seen as threats, from mayors to former armed forces commander Valery Zaluzhny.
In other words, Yermak worked tirelessly to ensure every major process in Ukraine ran through him and his boss. And he came close to succeeding. Had the so-called “Zermak” tandem succeeded in its summer offensive against the anti-corruption bodies NABU and SAP, Zelensky might well have emerged as a kind of autocrat. But the former comedian backed away at the decisive moment, a hesitation that ultimately sealed his friend’s fate.
The consequences for Zelensky are severe.
First, he has lost control over the power vertical that Yermak spent years constructing. It had been Yermak, not Zelensky, who coordinated the government, the security bloc, and the intelligence agencies through a network of personal loyalists. With him gone, no obvious successor exists who can replicate that degree of influence. The machinery may keep running for a time, but the operator is gone.
Second, Zelensky’s authority within his own camp has been badly damaged. The speed with which he abandoned Yermak, after only one search of his apartment, has sent shockwaves through the elite. If Zelensky could shed his closest ally without a fight, what does that signal to everyone else? Ukrainian media are already reporting that members of the leader’s team are seeking “new patrons.” Loyalty in Kiev has always been transactional; now it is openly fragile.
This weakening inevitably affects negotiations with Washington, where Yermak played a central role. Some commentators argue that his departure will soften Ukraine’s stance, given that his successor, NSDC head Rustem Umerov, is seen as more flexible. But that misreads the dynamic. Ukraine’s uncompromising position on peace talks has always been Zelensky’s own. Yermak merely articulated it. Whoever replaces him will deliver the same message.
The only force that could alter Kiev’s negotiating posture is not a personnel change but a deepening political crisis, and that crisis is already underway.
Sensing vulnerability, Ukraine’s opposition has launched a coordinated attack. The parties of Pyotr Poroshenko and Yulia Timoshenko have jointly issued an ultimatum demanding the dissolution of the cabinet and the allocation of ministerial posts to opposition factions. Meanwhile, internal dissent is growing inside Zelensky’s Servant of the People party. Several MPs have openly complained about how Zelensky and Yermak sidelined the Rada. Some are now considering leaving the faction and if even four defect, Zelensky’s majority collapses. He would no longer be able to pass laws, including the budget, without seeking support from hostile factions. That opens the door to political blackmail.
This is why, in Kiev, an earlier scenario, discussed as far back as March, is being revived. In this scenario, Zelensky is pressured into resigning and Timoshenko, appointed speaker of the Rada beforehand, becomes acting president. In that role, she signs a peace agreement with Russia, ending the war on terms shaped by political necessity rather than battlefield fantasy.
How likely is such a development?
Not imminent, but no longer unthinkable. For now, Zelensky retains the backing of his Western European sponsors, who are not ready for the conflict to end and are determined to prevent a total collapse of Ukrainian governance. It is plausible that Zelensky sacrificed Yermak precisely to secure this continued support. Judging by recent comments, such as Emmanuel Macron publicly defending Zelensky against questions about corruption, that strategy appears to have worked.
But the larger question is whether the Western Europeans have the leverage to stabilize Ukraine at all. Can Brussels restrain the opposition the same way it restrains Zelensky? Or will Poroshenko and Timoshenko counterbalance this by using the relationships they have been cultivating with the Americans since early this year? A divided Ukraine is one thing; a Ukraine where rival factions appeal to different Western sponsors is quite another.
The answer will emerge soon enough.
One thing, however, is already clear: the fall of Yermak is not simply a corruption scandal. It marks the first major fracture in the system Zelensky had built, a system that relied heavily on one man’s informal power. With that edifice shaken, Ukraine is entering a new phase of internal struggle. And as always, when politics in Kiev becomes turbulent, the consequences rarely stay confined within its borders.
Brew some tea. Things are about to get even more interesting.
.svg){kind=logo}
