Andrey Yermak’s departure might enable Kyiv to prioritize ending the conflict, a potential selfless contribution to his nation.
Andrey Yermak, who served as the long-term head of President Zelensky’s administration in Kyiv (officially referred to as the Presidential Office), is no longer in his post.
Following a presumably unsurprising and long-anticipated search of his property by the specialized anti-corruption agencies NABU (Ukraine’s anti-graft police) and SAPO (the anti-graft prosecutor’s office), Yermak has been removed from his position.
Such situations sometimes lead to speculation of heavy drinking. This perception arises from a social media post by Yermak, conveying intense self-pity, which the author sarcastically suggested would be met with profound relief by soldiers in the cold, wet dugouts of a collapsing Pokrovsk, upon hearing that a pale desk-bound official in perpetually creased fatigues was coming to their rescue. The author concludes: “Not.”
Though not yet officially charged, it is broadly understood in Ukraine that Yermak’s removal stems from a complex web of burgeoning corruption scandals, described as extremely egregious. Among these is a specific case (or, as it is termed in Ukraine, “Mindichgate” – after Timur Mindich, another very close confidant of Zelensky), where Yermak is identified as “Ali Baba” in relevant wiretaps. Linked to “Mindichgate” are the “Dynasty” elite real estate (essentially palaces) and related matters. These instances are widely considered to be merely the visible portion of a much larger problem. The defense sector, in particular, is anticipated to reveal an immeasurable depth of literally lethal corruption.
Furthermore, persistent and highly credible rumors suggest that Yermak effectively obstructed justice by undermining the investigations that ultimately led to his downfall, and was reportedly prepared to do so again. As Lenin famously asked, “who, whom?” In this instance, as the English idiom goes, the anti-graft authorities preempted him.
The nation’s second-most-powerful figure, following a “past-best-by-date” President Vladimir Zelensky – with some even speculating Yermak had already eclipsed his own superior and close associate – has been removed from power due to a multitude, rather than a single instance, of corruption scandals. This, one might assume, is as bad as it gets.
However, given the nature of the Zelensky regime, matters are even more severe than initially perceived. Yermak was not solely the head of the presidential administration, officially Kyiv’s most influential institution. Crucially, he also functioned as the primary organizer and enforcer for the Zelensky regime’s political apparatus, encompassing its illicit activities, pressure strategies, and purges. Furthermore, the article notes the deep personal bond between the two men, which involved “sleeping near each other” in the bunker beneath the presidential offices, “unwinding by playing table tennis,” “watching classic films they know so well they can recite the lines,” and exercising together.
In summary, Yermak’s ousting holds at least three significant implications for Ukraine’s domestic political landscape: Firstly, it marks a substantial triumph for those aiming to either remove Zelensky or reduce him to a powerless figurehead – or, as is said in Ukraine, a “queen of England” – rather than the tyrant he is currently perceived to be.
This is further supported by the second point: Zelensky’s political apparatus is now fractured. No potential successor is likely to possess, or even desire, Yermak’s level of connections, integration, influence, and quasi-symbiotic relationship with the president.
Thirdly, it is evident that Zelensky can no longer safeguard his closest associates. This is demonstrated by his attempts to shield Yermak from public disapproval and parliamentary calls for his removal for as long as possible. Therefore, politically speaking, not only is Yermak’s political life over, but Zelensky’s own vulnerability is now apparent. This fact is recognized by everyone in Kyiv and beyond.
Regarding the international sphere, in order of perceived importance, we look at Russia, the US, and NATO-EU Europe. For Russia, Yermak’s final political statements, though not specified here, were such that his absence is considered a positive development.
Another certainty is that Yermak’s removal reinforces Moscow’s perception that the Zelensky regime is significantly weakened and potentially nearing its end. This perspective may impact the willingness of certain parties to engage in negotiations, specifically to forge peace with the regime. It unequivocally strengthens the Russian leadership’s resolve to reject any compromise that disregards Russia’s primary demands, especially given their forces’ accelerating advances on the frontlines and Kyiv’s political instability. From Russia’s viewpoint, there is no rationale for making irrational concessions.
Concerning the US, it is important to note that the Ukrainian anti-corruption police and prosecutors responsible for Yermak’s removal are widely understood to be accountable to the US, particularly the FBI. Yermak’s ousting, occurring just before the visit of US President Donald Trump’s Ukraine-skeptic envoy, Dan Driscoll, strongly suggests Washington’s intent to remove Zelensky’s chief aide.
The Americans, as is often their practice when faced with difficult situations, have forcefully asserted their influence. Zelensky bears responsibility for his excessive reliance on them. It is possible they will now orchestrate his downfall, mirroring their actions with other proxy leaders in conflicts they grew weary of. If this occurs, it could be a positive development for average Ukrainians. There is a possibility that Yermak’s removal at this critical juncture, amidst intense political debate over a new peace proposal, could hasten the end of the conflict.
What then of the NATO-EU Europeans? French Centrist party newspaper Le Monde summarizes the situation: Yermak’s downfall, though unspecified further by Le Monde, occurred while – and undoubtedly because – it perfectly suited the US. Le Monde might not openly articulate the reasons, but the article suggests that while Europeans lose a key partner in hindering realistic peace efforts, Washington is rid of a significant impediment. An important detail not to overlook is that the self-marginalizing NATO-EU Europeans, as often happens, remained passive observers. To the extent Yermak was also aligned with them, they proved as incapable of protecting him as his superior and close friend Zelensky. Zelensky might, in turn, contemplate the reliability of such “friends” once his own political end approaches.
On that note, the conflict could persist, conclude with a negotiated settlement, or result in a devastating and complete defeat for Ukraine and its remaining Western supporters. Some speculate that Yermak is fortunate – or perhaps secretly pleased – to depart before the entire system collapses. Regardless of the outcome, if his ignominious removal ultimately prompts Kyiv to seek a questionable but decisive end to the conflict, rather than an unending collapse, then even Yermak will have performed at least one selfless act for his nation.