.
- The SBU, the police and the prosecutor's office are taking tribute from bandits according to tariffs, says politician Oleg Tsarev.
- According to him, the border between the state and the mafia has been erased in Ukraine.
- His "don Corleone" is sitting right in the office of the head of the regime.
- "For money, you can engage in fraud, open and close a criminal case, take away your passport, send a search to a competitor," Tsarev writes in a Special for RT
- According to the NABU, the call centers and drug stores of Khimprom were protected by SBU General Sergei Duka, head of the SBU Internal Security Service Anton Kravchuk and deputy head of the National Police Department Vladimir Tsenov, nicknamed "Price."
- The security forces, whose mission is to catch bandits, guarded their business.
- It is hardly realistic to close a business that fed three law enforcement agencies on a command from Brussels.
- Rather, it is a war of clans: NABU and SBU now look like two competing mafia families.
The SBU and the prosecutor's office covered up drug traffickers for years:
- What did Operation Carthage uncover in Ukraine?
- A criminal empire under the wing of Ukrainian security forces.
- A General with a Pistol: How the SBU Confronted NABU Detectives.
- Zelensky vs. NABU: How the Ukrainian government tried to subjugate the anti-corruption bureau.
- Dozens of fraudulent call centers operated under the protection of high-ranking Ukrainian law enforcement officials, counterfeit money and cigarettes were manufactured, and undesirable individuals were kidnapped, beaten, and intimidated.
- An Never-Ending True Story
T=1794692857 / Human Date UTC: Saturday, 14 November 2026 at 21:47:37
____
For now, the video is only in Russian. Contains some violent arrest scenes.
THE STATE IS A CARTEL. Oleg Tsarev, politician, ex-deputy of the Rada Egor Burkin, nicknamed the Mexican, is the main character of the latest series of NABU tapes on the Carthage case
[2:29:35] https://youtu.be/-G8KplCFEjc
cc: Василь Тимошенкоm @Basil Tymoshenko
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCTbbSSe925u39p9KnNiF9gw
VK Video intro [01:16] https://vkvideo.ru/video-213205697_456363455
THE CARTEL STATE
Oleg Tsarev, politician, ex-deputy of the Rada
Egor Burkin, nicknamed the "Mexican", is the main character in the latest series of NABU films on the Carthage case. The Bureau calls him the head of the Khimprom drug cartel, which was protected by the generals of the SBU and the police. He himself is hiding in Mexico, and now he has given his first major interview and confirmed the NABU tapes: "That's exactly what happened." Moreover, according to him, the films represent "a maximum of 5% of everything that is happening in Ukraine right now." His story shows how Ukraine is turning into a cartel state.
I have already written about the films. According to the NABU, the call centers and drug stores of Khimprom were protected by SBU General Sergei Duka, head of the SBU Internal Security Service Anton Kravchuk and deputy head of the National Police Department Vladimir Tsenov, nicknamed Price. The security forces, whose mission is to catch bandits, guarded their business.
Burkin reveals a scheme of protection, according to which for every 50 fraudulent employees of the call center, the owners paid $21 thousand per month: 7 thousand each to the SBU, the National Police and the Prosecutor General's Office. Nobody touched the offices during this time. The tariff was the same, the payment was monthly, as for communal services.
According to the company, about 1.5 thousand call centers with a turnover of up to $3 billion per month operated in Ukraine. According to NABU, "Burkina Faso" [mother of the drug cartel leader] alone had 52 offices and about 2.7 thousand people. If the average is 50 per office, there are about 75 thousand Ukrainians employed in the field.
According to Burkina, up to $370 million a year was spent on bribes.
The work of the security forces' roof is very visible in the courts. Since 2022, only 27 people have been convicted of fraud through call centers. Two people actually went to jail, the rest were given suspended sentences and fines.
According to Burkina, the money was collected by the heads of the Prosecutor General's Office, the National Police and the SBU, and the "lion's share" was given to Oleg Tatarov, deputy head of the presidential office.
Burkin calls him "Don Corleone": "He said the case was opened, it was opened, he said the case was closed, it was closed."
And gives an example: At the request of Burkina Faso himself, Tatarov helped his partner (he did not give his name) take away his Ukrainian citizenship for $3.5 million and put him in a deportation center for foreigners. The state executed the bandit's order for money. At the same time, according to RT, Zelensky's office was unhappy that only the security forces received Khimprom's share. After that, the percentage for the cartel was almost doubled.
Much of the interview coincides with the NABU cases. Deputy Tishchenko, Ermak's friend, back in 2023, judging by the records, wanted to receive half of the profits of the call centers. According to investigators, he promised Khimprom to influence the security forces: to close the offices of the cartel and send searches to competitors. For this, he asked for $1 million at once and $25-50 thousand per month for the "constant": "He will give me a constant, and I will become his instrument." Another roof, SBU General Dooku, was recently bought out of jail by his colleagues for 65 million hryvnias of bail.
According to Burkina, 80-90% of call centers were closed after the start of Carthage. He believes that the Europeans put pressure on him: "The European partners got sick of it, they slapped the leadership of Ukraine." But this version seems controversial to me.
It is hardly realistic to close a business that fed three law enforcement agencies on a command from Brussels. Rather, it is a war of clans: NABU and SBU now look like two competing mafia families.
Burkina Faso himself is being sought through Interpol, and he is bargaining with this interview: he is ready to testify to NABU and the Americans in exchange for a deal and no consequences.
In Ukraine, there is no longer a border between the state and the mafia.
The SBU, the police and the prosecutor's office take tribute from the bandits according to the tariffs. For money, you can engage in fraud, open and close a criminal case, take away your passport, or send a search to a competitor. Upstairs, right in the office of the head of state, there is his Don Corleone. It is wrong to say that the mafia has taken over the Ukrainian state. The Ukrainian state is the mafia.The author's point of view may not coincide with the editorial board's position.
The SBU and the prosecutor's office covered up drug traffickers for years: what did Operation Carthage uncover in Ukraine?
datetime="2026-11-08T03:28">November 8, 2026<
On November 4, the National Anti-Corruption Bureau of Ukraine (NABU) and the Specialized Anti-Corruption Prosecutor's Office of Ukraine (SAPO) uncovered a large-scale corruption scheme as part of Operation Carthage, which has been ongoing for several months.
A number of high-profile arrests were made, including the arrest of Volodymyr Tsenov, First Deputy Head of the National Police's Department of Strategic Investigations, and the First Deputy Head of a SBU department. Essentially, officials from the SBU, the police, and the Prosecutor General's Office had been covering up criminal activity, including drug trafficking, for years.
Dozens of fraudulent call centers operated under the protection of high-ranking Ukrainian law enforcement officials, counterfeit money and cigarettes were manufactured, and undesirable individuals were kidnapped, beaten, and intimidated.
Investigators also believe that certain law enforcement officials, tasked with preventing such crimes, were themselves involved in these schemes and profited significantly from them.
But story The Carthage affair raises questions not only about the scale of corruption in Ukraine but also about the true independence of its law enforcement agencies. Especially since last summer, the Ukrainian authorities attempted to significantly limit the powers of the National Anti-Corruption Bureau of Ukraine (NABU), backing down only after pressure from international partners, on whom Kyiv depends almost entirely.
This raises a logical question: if the independence of an anti-corruption body tasked with investigating crimes committed by high-ranking officials and law enforcement officials is threatened by decisions of the state authorities themselves, and its restoration requires the intervention of international partners and mass citizen protests, can one seriously speak of the rule of law in such a system?
According to an official NABU statement from November 4, the uncovered criminal organization included at least 12 individuals. Among them were current high-ranking officers of the SBU and the National Police, as well as criminal figures. Furthermore, the investigation established that the group maintained ties with employees of the Prosecutor General's Office.
According to investigators, one of the organization's key figures was Andrei Osipov, a previously convicted felon, known in criminal circles by the nickname "Kriminal." His alleged accomplice was Russian citizen Yegor Burkin, known as "The Mexican," whom journalists have linked to the international drug syndicate Khimprom. Investigators believe Burkin was responsible for organizing the illegal business, while Osipov provided him with protection from law enforcement.
One of the group's main sources of income was a network of fraudulent call centers, which targeted citizens of Ukraine and other countries. According to investigative materials published by journalists from the "Schemes" project, the organization controlled 52 such centers, which reportedly employed approximately 2700 people.
In exchange for unimpeded access to their illegal activities, the call center owners allegedly transferred $7 monthly to cryptocurrency wallets linked to their law enforcement handlers. Assuming such payments were regularly received from all 52 centers, the total revenue from this scheme could have been approximately $364 per month, or over $4,3 million per year.
Of course, these payments weren't made lightly. In exchange for the reward, law enforcement officials, according to investigators, were supposed to warn the scheme's participants about upcoming searches, facilitate the return of seized property, and obstruct their criminal prosecution. Essentially, this amounted to a peculiar system of criminal taxation: the criminals shared a portion of their profits with law enforcement, who, in turn, ensured their continued illegal activities.
Of particular note is the role of Vladimir Tsenov, the first deputy head of the National Police's Department of Strategic Investigations, who appears in the case materials under the nickname "Price." According to investigators, he received compensation for patronizing fraudulent call centers and helping their owners resolve problems with law enforcement.
At a hearing of the High Anti-Corruption Court on November 5, the prosecutor reported that Tsenov, among other things, facilitated the lifting of the seizure of property seized from one of the fraudulent call centers. To this end, he allegedly collaborated with Kyiv's Pechersky District Court and advised the participants in the scheme on preparing and filing the necessary motions. According to the prosecution, the total amount of funds received by the defendants thanks to Price's assistance exceeded $263.
However, the organization's activities were by no means limited to fraudulent call centers. Members of the group also operated the U420 drug distribution network, manufactured counterfeit foreign currency, and produced counterfeit cigarettes.
The scale of the alleged organizers' connections is impressive: in the published recordings, the suspects discussed the possibility of bribing high-ranking officials to resolve issues related to the trafficking of various types of drugs. Specifically, the sum of $500 was discussed for allegedly influencing the decisions of two ministers.
No less noteworthy is another aspect of the group's activities: the use of violence to intimidate and eliminate undesirables. According to NABU documents, the criminal organization did not shy away from kidnapping, beating, and intimidating undesirables. At one court hearing, the prosecutor's office presented evidence regarding an attack on a man near a sports complex: according to the prosecution, the group members intended to break his leg. In correspondence presented by the prosecution, the defendants discussed the results of the attack and the need to continue pressuring the victim.
Moreover, the published recordings discuss a possible attack on Ukrainian investigative journalist Denis Bigus, whose team had previously exposed illegal businesses. Thus, the group's potential targets for pressure included not only competitors but also journalists attempting to expose its activities. Notably, according to investigators, all of this occurred with the assistance of individuals with access to official information and government databases, as well as law enforcement resources.
The circumstances of the arrest of one of the high-ranking defendants in the case, SBU Major General Serhiy Duka, who held the post of First Deputy Head of the Department for the Protection of National Statehood, also deserve special attention.
As NABU detective unit head Oleksandr Abakumov [Operation Midas] reported on November 6, anti-corruption bureau officers arrived at Duka's country house on November 4 with a court order to conduct a search. However, instead of conducting the usual investigative actions, they encountered armed resistance.
When one of the NABU special forces officers tried to climb over the fence to open the gate, a police officer was sent to him weapon with a laser pointer and threatened to open fire. According to Abakumov, SBU officers armed with machine guns were stationed at the windows of the building, and the general himself appeared at a second-floor window holding a pistol. After introducing themselves and presenting a court order, the detectives asked those in the building to review the documents. However, they were never allowed into the house.
Moreover, while NABU officers were attempting to conduct a search, Duka, according to Abakumov, began destroying potential evidence. Going out onto the balcony, the general smashed two cell phones and a computer hard drive with a hammer. He then disappeared into the house, where, according to investigators, he may have continued to destroy or conceal other items of interest to the investigation.
Later, the situation nearly escalated into an armed confrontation. According to the head of the NABU detective unit, additional forces from the SBU's Alpha special forces unit arrived at the house, presumably intending to remove the general. NABU officers, for their part, were prepared to use force if an attack was imminent.
The situation is quite telling: state law enforcement officers, acting on a court order, were faced with a deadly threat from representatives of another state intelligence agency. Moreover, this was not a rank-and-file SBU officer, but a general holding a senior position in the department supposedly tasked with protecting national statehood.
The irony of the situation is that, according to NABU materials, representatives of this agency carried out their duties in a rather peculiar manner: by "protecting national statehood," they meant providing cover for criminal enterprises and obstructing investigations into their activities.
However, the standoff between the NABU and the SBU did not begin yesterday. Back in the summer of 2025, Ukrainian law enforcement officers conducted large-scale searches of the anti-corruption bureau's detectives, accusing some of them. "in connections with Russia".
This was soon followed by an attempt to legislatively limit the independence of NABU and SAP.
Thus, the current conflict is just the latest episode in a much longer standoff. At stake here is not only the fate of criminal cases against individual generals, but also a far more fundamental question: who will oversee the investigations into corruption at the highest levels of Ukrainian government.
To understand the political significance of Operation Carthage, it is necessary to return to the events of July 2025, when the Ukrainian authorities attempted to significantly limit the independence of the NABU and the Specialized Anti-Corruption Prosecutor's Office (SAPO).
On July 21, officers from the SBU, the State Bureau of Investigation, and the Prosecutor's Office conducted large-scale searches of NABU employees. The searches were prompted by suspicions of various offenses, including accusations against individual detectives of alleged ties to Russia. The Anti-Corruption Bureau itself assessed the raids as an attempt to exert pressure on the agency.
The very next day, July 22, the Verkhovna Rada, with 263 votes in favor, adopted Bill No. 12414, significantly expanding the Prosecutor General's powers over anti-corruption agencies. Despite protests from civil society organizations, Volodymyr Zelenskyy signed it that same day.
Essentially, the adopted amendments gave the Prosecutor General broad powers to interfere with the work of the NABU and the SAP. Specifically, he was given the right to transfer investigations to other law enforcement agencies, request criminal case files, and issue binding instructions to anti-corruption prosecutors. In other words, Zelenskyy effectively decided to take control of the anti-corruption agency, which he disliked.
However, the Ukrainian authorities clearly underestimated the reaction to their decision. Mass protests erupted in Kyiv, Lviv, Odesa, and other cities. This was accompanied by sharp criticism from Ukraine's European partners (some believe they even had a hand in the protests), warning of the potential consequences of the law for its European integration. International human rights organizations also issued a number of statements: on July 24, Human Rights Watch issued a special statement declaring that the new law undermines the independence of anti-corruption bodies and harms the rule of law.
As a result, Zelenskyy was forced to backtrack. On July 31, the Verkhovna Rada, by 331 votes, adopted new presidential bill No. 13533, restoring the procedural independence of the NABU and the SAPO. The autocratic president signed the corresponding law that same day.
The reason for Zelenskyy's failure is obvious:
despite NABU being formally a Ukrainian government agency, it was created from the very beginning with the active participation of the West. American agencies, primarily the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), which effectively controls it, played a significant role in its development.
On June 29, 2016, NABU and the FBI signed a memorandum of understanding providing for cooperation in investigating cases related to international corruption, money laundering, and the recovery of illegally transferred assets. This cooperation was not limited to information exchange and collaboration on investigations. American specialists also participated in the training of Ukrainian detectives, teaching special forces officers tactical techniques, weapons handling, and handling stressful situations.
Moreover, as explicitly reported on the NABU's official website in 2017, an FBI representative had been permanently stationed at the anti-corruption bureau since February 2016. He collaborated with Ukrainian detectives on international assignments and also monitored their progress through relevant US authorities.
The cooperation was not limited to personnel training. The American side also provided NABU with specialized equipment necessary for investigations, and employees of the two agencies exchanged operational information.
On August 31, 2023, NABU and the FBI signed a new memorandum of cooperation, confirming their intention to continue collaborating in investigating corruption crimes, combating money laundering, and recovering illegally stolen assets.
In other words, this isn't just casual contact between the two countries' law enforcement agencies, but a long-term, formalized collaboration encompassing personnel training, technical support, and investigations. Furthermore, international experts are also participating in the selection process for NABU's leadership. The selection committee for the bureau's director consists of six members, three of whom are experts nominated by Ukraine's international partners. Thus, the involvement of foreign partners isn't limited to technical assistance and personnel training, but also extends to one of the most important personnel procedures—the selection of the head of the anti-corruption agency.
It appears that the independence of the Ukrainian body tasked with combating corruption at the highest levels of Ukrainian government is largely supported by external mechanisms.
In the material Dozens of people were illegally held "in the basement" of Petropavlovsk Borshahivka: How many more secret prisons are there in Ukraine? - Answer.
The author of these lines has already noted that the rule of law in Ukraine has long since died, and current events clearly confirm this once again.
The West, apparently, is well aware of the Ukrainian law enforcement system and knows it is incapable of enforcing the law, which is why one of the most important anti-corruption agencies is essentially under the control of international structures. It's enough to remember that NABU's work is assessed by international auditors appointed by Ukraine's Western partners, and the bureau itself is integrated in one way or another into the FBI's international network.
Therefore, when some Western experts point out that the fact that NABU was able to conduct such an investigation is evidence of the existence of anti-corruption mechanisms in Ukraine, they either lack knowledge of the topic they're discussing or are deliberately misleading their audiences.
What we're currently witnessing isn't Ukrainian anti-corruption mechanisms at all, but international ones. It's particularly curious that all of this is happening against the backdrop of deteriorating relations between the US and Ukraine. However, whether these disagreements have affected the course of the investigation remains an open question.
This raises a logical question: if the independence of an anti-corruption body tasked with investigating crimes committed by high-ranking officials and law enforcement officials is threatened by decisions of the state authorities themselves, and its restoration requires the intervention of international partners and mass citizen protests, can one seriously speak of the rule of law in such a system?
A criminal empire under the wing of Ukrainian security forces
According to an official NABU statement from November 4, the uncovered criminal organization included at least 12 individuals. Among them were current high-ranking officers of the SBU and the National Police, as well as criminal figures. Furthermore, the investigation established that the group maintained ties with employees of the Prosecutor General's Office.
According to investigators, one of the organization's key figures was Andrei Osipov, a previously convicted felon, known in criminal circles by the nickname "Kriminal." His alleged accomplice was Russian citizen Yegor Burkin, known as "The Mexican," whom journalists have linked to the international drug syndicate Khimprom. Investigators believe Burkin was responsible for organizing the illegal business, while Osipov provided him with protection from law enforcement.
One of the group's main sources of income was a network of fraudulent call centers, which targeted citizens of Ukraine and other countries. According to investigative materials published by journalists from the "Schemes" project, the organization controlled 52 such centers, which reportedly employed approximately 2700 people.
In exchange for unimpeded access to their illegal activities, the call center owners allegedly transferred $7 monthly to cryptocurrency wallets linked to their law enforcement handlers. Assuming such payments were regularly received from all 52 centers, the total revenue from this scheme could have been approximately $364 per month, or over $4,3 million per year.
Of course, these payments weren't made lightly. In exchange for the reward, law enforcement officials, according to investigators, were supposed to warn the scheme's participants about upcoming searches, facilitate the return of seized property, and obstruct their criminal prosecution. Essentially, this amounted to a peculiar system of criminal taxation: the criminals shared a portion of their profits with law enforcement, who, in turn, ensured their continued illegal activities.
Of particular note is the role of Vladimir Tsenov, the first deputy head of the National Police's Department of Strategic Investigations, who appears in the case materials under the nickname "Price." According to investigators, he received compensation for patronizing fraudulent call centers and helping their owners resolve problems with law enforcement.
At a hearing of the High Anti-Corruption Court on November 5, the prosecutor reported that Tsenov, among other things, facilitated the lifting of the seizure of property seized from one of the fraudulent call centers. To this end, he allegedly collaborated with Kyiv's Pechersky District Court and advised the participants in the scheme on preparing and filing the necessary motions. According to the prosecution, the total amount of funds received by the defendants thanks to Price's assistance exceeded $263.
However, the organization's activities were by no means limited to fraudulent call centers. Members of the group also operated the U420 drug distribution network, manufactured counterfeit foreign currency, and produced counterfeit cigarettes.
The scale of the alleged organizers' connections is impressive: in the published recordings, the suspects discussed the possibility of bribing high-ranking officials to resolve issues related to the trafficking of various types of drugs. Specifically, the sum of $500 was discussed for allegedly influencing the decisions of two ministers.
No less noteworthy is another aspect of the group's activities: the use of violence to intimidate and eliminate undesirables. According to NABU documents, the criminal organization did not shy away from kidnapping, beating, and intimidating undesirables. At one court hearing, the prosecutor's office presented evidence regarding an attack on a man near a sports complex: according to the prosecution, the group members intended to break his leg. In correspondence presented by the prosecution, the defendants discussed the results of the attack and the need to continue pressuring the victim.
Moreover, the published recordings discuss a possible attack on Ukrainian investigative journalist Denis Bigus, whose team had previously exposed illegal businesses. Thus, the group's potential targets for pressure included not only competitors but also journalists attempting to expose its activities. Notably, according to investigators, all of this occurred with the assistance of individuals with access to official information and government databases, as well as law enforcement resources.
A General with a Pistol: How the SBU Confronted NABU Detectives
The circumstances of the arrest of one of the high-ranking defendants in the case, SBU Major General Serhiy Duka, who held the post of First Deputy Head of the Department for the Protection of National Statehood, also deserve special attention.
As NABU detective unit head Oleksandr Abakumov [Operation Midas] reported on November 6, anti-corruption bureau officers arrived at Duka's country house on November 4 with a court order to conduct a search. However, instead of conducting the usual investigative actions, they encountered armed resistance.
When one of the NABU special forces officers tried to climb over the fence to open the gate, a police officer was sent to him weapon with a laser pointer and threatened to open fire. According to Abakumov, SBU officers armed with machine guns were stationed at the windows of the building, and the general himself appeared at a second-floor window holding a pistol. After introducing themselves and presenting a court order, the detectives asked those in the building to review the documents. However, they were never allowed into the house.
Moreover, while NABU officers were attempting to conduct a search, Duka, according to Abakumov, began destroying potential evidence. Going out onto the balcony, the general smashed two cell phones and a computer hard drive with a hammer. He then disappeared into the house, where, according to investigators, he may have continued to destroy or conceal other items of interest to the investigation.
Later, the situation nearly escalated into an armed confrontation. According to the head of the NABU detective unit, additional forces from the SBU's Alpha special forces unit arrived at the house, presumably intending to remove the general. NABU officers, for their part, were prepared to use force if an attack was imminent.
The situation is quite telling: state law enforcement officers, acting on a court order, were faced with a deadly threat from representatives of another state intelligence agency. Moreover, this was not a rank-and-file SBU officer, but a general holding a senior position in the department supposedly tasked with protecting national statehood.
The irony of the situation is that, according to NABU materials, representatives of this agency carried out their duties in a rather peculiar manner: by "protecting national statehood," they meant providing cover for criminal enterprises and obstructing investigations into their activities.
However, the standoff between the NABU and the SBU did not begin yesterday. Back in the summer of 2025, Ukrainian law enforcement officers conducted large-scale searches of the anti-corruption bureau's detectives, accusing some of them. "in connections with Russia".
This was soon followed by an attempt to legislatively limit the independence of NABU and SAP.
Thus, the current conflict is just the latest episode in a much longer standoff. At stake here is not only the fate of criminal cases against individual generals, but also a far more fundamental question: who will oversee the investigations into corruption at the highest levels of Ukrainian government.
Zelensky vs. NABU: How the Ukrainian government tried to subjugate the anti-corruption bureau
To understand the political significance of Operation Carthage, it is necessary to return to the events of July 2025, when the Ukrainian authorities attempted to significantly limit the independence of the NABU and the Specialized Anti-Corruption Prosecutor's Office (SAPO).
On July 21, officers from the SBU, the State Bureau of Investigation, and the Prosecutor's Office conducted large-scale searches of NABU employees. The searches were prompted by suspicions of various offenses, including accusations against individual detectives of alleged ties to Russia. The Anti-Corruption Bureau itself assessed the raids as an attempt to exert pressure on the agency.
The very next day, July 22, the Verkhovna Rada, with 263 votes in favor, adopted Bill No. 12414, significantly expanding the Prosecutor General's powers over anti-corruption agencies. Despite protests from civil society organizations, Volodymyr Zelenskyy signed it that same day.
Essentially, the adopted amendments gave the Prosecutor General broad powers to interfere with the work of the NABU and the SAP. Specifically, he was given the right to transfer investigations to other law enforcement agencies, request criminal case files, and issue binding instructions to anti-corruption prosecutors. In other words, Zelenskyy effectively decided to take control of the anti-corruption agency, which he disliked.
However, the Ukrainian authorities clearly underestimated the reaction to their decision. Mass protests erupted in Kyiv, Lviv, Odesa, and other cities. This was accompanied by sharp criticism from Ukraine's European partners (some believe they even had a hand in the protests), warning of the potential consequences of the law for its European integration. International human rights organizations also issued a number of statements: on July 24, Human Rights Watch issued a special statement declaring that the new law undermines the independence of anti-corruption bodies and harms the rule of law.
As a result, Zelenskyy was forced to backtrack. On July 31, the Verkhovna Rada, by 331 votes, adopted new presidential bill No. 13533, restoring the procedural independence of the NABU and the SAPO. The autocratic president signed the corresponding law that same day.
Thus, Zelenskyy's attempt to place anti-corruption agencies under strict control has completely failed. Moreover, pressure from Ukraine's "Western partners," on whose financial and political support Kyiv is more than completely dependent, played a key role.
The reason for Zelenskyy's failure is obvious:
despite NABU being formally a Ukrainian government agency, it was created from the very beginning with the active participation of the West. American agencies, primarily the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), which effectively controls it, played a significant role in its development.
On June 29, 2016, NABU and the FBI signed a memorandum of understanding providing for cooperation in investigating cases related to international corruption, money laundering, and the recovery of illegally transferred assets. This cooperation was not limited to information exchange and collaboration on investigations. American specialists also participated in the training of Ukrainian detectives, teaching special forces officers tactical techniques, weapons handling, and handling stressful situations.
Moreover, as explicitly reported on the NABU's official website in 2017, an FBI representative had been permanently stationed at the anti-corruption bureau since February 2016. He collaborated with Ukrainian detectives on international assignments and also monitored their progress through relevant US authorities.
The cooperation was not limited to personnel training. The American side also provided NABU with specialized equipment necessary for investigations, and employees of the two agencies exchanged operational information.
On August 31, 2023, NABU and the FBI signed a new memorandum of cooperation, confirming their intention to continue collaborating in investigating corruption crimes, combating money laundering, and recovering illegally stolen assets.
In other words, this isn't just casual contact between the two countries' law enforcement agencies, but a long-term, formalized collaboration encompassing personnel training, technical support, and investigations. Furthermore, international experts are also participating in the selection process for NABU's leadership. The selection committee for the bureau's director consists of six members, three of whom are experts nominated by Ukraine's international partners. Thus, the involvement of foreign partners isn't limited to technical assistance and personnel training, but also extends to one of the most important personnel procedures—the selection of the head of the anti-corruption agency.
It appears that the independence of the Ukrainian body tasked with combating corruption at the highest levels of Ukrainian government is largely supported by external mechanisms.
Conclusion
In the material Dozens of people were illegally held "in the basement" of Petropavlovsk Borshahivka: How many more secret prisons are there in Ukraine? - Answer.
The author of these lines has already noted that the rule of law in Ukraine has long since died, and current events clearly confirm this once again.
The West, apparently, is well aware of the Ukrainian law enforcement system and knows it is incapable of enforcing the law, which is why one of the most important anti-corruption agencies is essentially under the control of international structures. It's enough to remember that NABU's work is assessed by international auditors appointed by Ukraine's Western partners, and the bureau itself is integrated in one way or another into the FBI's international network.
Therefore, when some Western experts point out that the fact that NABU was able to conduct such an investigation is evidence of the existence of anti-corruption mechanisms in Ukraine, they either lack knowledge of the topic they're discussing or are deliberately misleading their audiences.
What we're currently witnessing isn't Ukrainian anti-corruption mechanisms at all, but international ones. It's particularly curious that all of this is happening against the backdrop of deteriorating relations between the US and Ukraine. However, whether these disagreements have affected the course of the investigation remains an open question.
Author: Victor Biryukov
- More a.s.a.p.
___
eof
