Ukrainian civil society demands it. American officials privately wish for it. International partners grow increasingly frustrated. This publication has called for it.
Yet when a $100 million corruption scandal reached his inner circle in November 2025, President Volodymyr Zelenskyy didn’t fire his chief of staff, Andriy Yermak—he appointed him to lead negotiations in Washington about Trump’s precarious 28-point “peace” plan.
The Ukrainian president is holding on to compromised people for a reason, and that reason has a name: the dependency trap.
Zelenskyy has constructed a governance model where even figures as toxic as these have become structurally indispensable. But the sustainability of this calculation is starting to crack—and Ukraine’s survival may depend on which breaks first: the system or the trap.
The Mindich tapes and what they revealed
In November 2025, Ukraine’s anti-corruption bureau exposed Tymur Mindich—Zelenskyy’s business partner from their Kvartal 95 comedy studio days, birthday party guest, and close friend—for allegedly orchestrating protection rackets at Energoatom while Russia systematically struck power infrastructure.
Operation Midas documented how contractors faced a “Shlagbaum” (bar gate): pay 10-15% kickbacks or risk having payments frozen.
When discussing protective structures for nuclear facilities in June, one suspect on tape said, “I’d wait. But, f***, honestly, it’s a shame to waste the money.” A month later, Russia targeted substations powering Khmelnytskyi and Rivne nuclear plants.
But the surveillance recordings captured more than Mindich’s alleged scheme.
On the tapes, a figure referred to as “Ali-Baba” ran meetings with law enforcement officials, instructing them to pressure the National Anti-Corruption Bureau (NABU) and Specialized Anti-Corruption Prosecutor’s Office (SAPO).
SAPO chief Oleksandr Klymenko revealed this detail publicly. MP Yaroslav Zhelezniak stated that “several sources confirmed—Ali-Baba = AB (Andriy Borysovych). So this is Andriy Borysovych Yermak.”
Mindich fled Ukraine hours before NABU arrived to search his apartment. Yermak stayed.
The July crackdown that tested the system
The November tapes explained what happened in July. In July 2025, the government claimed Russia compromised anti-corruption investigators. Overnight raids came. Legislation stripping the agencies of independence was rushed through parliament. By morning, institutions investigating the president’s circle would report to the president’s appointee.
Yet, then the teenagers showed up. “F*ck corruption,” their handmade cardboard signs read.
These weren’t organized protests with political backing—just young Ukrainians who understood instinctively that you can’t ask people to die for a European future while protecting Soviet-style governance. Mass demonstrations flooded Kyiv, Lviv, Dnipro, Odesa, and other cities across Ukraine. Within a week, parliament voted 331-0 to restore NABU’s independence. Zelenskyy capitulated.
Yermak—allegedly “Ali-Baba” coordinating the pressure campaign—remained in his position. Yes, the teenagers had won a battle, but the system survived. And this moment revealed what many in Ukrainian politics quietly understood: certain officials have become structurally irreplaceable.
How Yermak accumulated unprecedented power
How did Yermak become irreplaceable? By systematically accumulating control across every lever of governance.
Former Presidential Office employees told The Kyiv Independent that Zelenskyy and Yermak function as “ying and yang”—one entity, not two. Zelenskyy sets strategy; Yermak executes. Political analyst Volodymyr Fesenko described Yermak as “the main button on Zelenskyy’s remote control.”
“He presented himself as someone absolutely devoted to the president—as the perfect executor,” Fesenko explained.
“His main goal is to become the most acceptable, comfortable, and effective tool for Zelenskyy.”
Yermak’s power extends across every branch:
- Parliament: Zelenskyy’s Servant of the People party holds 254 of 450 seats. Sources told The Kyiv Independent that “the President's Office handpicks ministers and tells lawmakers what laws to support.”
- Cabinet: In July 2025, Prime Minister Denys Shmyhal was replaced by Yulia Svyrydenko, widely seen as closely aligned with Yermak. She served as his deputy from 2020 to 2021. Opposition lawmakers told The Kyiv Independent that Svyrydenko’s appointment consolidated Yermak’s control.
- Law enforcement: Through his deputy Oleh Tatarov, Yermak allegedly maintains influence over key law enforcement bodies. The July crackdown on NABU—attributed to Yermak by multiple sources, including opposition MPs—demonstrated this reach. Prosecutor General Ruslan Kravchenko, appointed in June 2025, is seen as Yermak’s protégé.
- Foreign policy: Yermak gradually pushed aside Foreign Minister Dmytro Kuleba, eventually replacing him in 2024 with Andriy Sybiha, who had been Yermak’s deputy. Politico reported that Kuleba “irritated Yermak, who wanted more control over the Foreign Ministry.”Yermak systematically removed anyone showing independence. Commander-in-Chief Valerii Zaluzhnyi was fired in 2024 after becoming too popular. Infrastructure Minister Oleksandr Kubrakov was dismissed after maintaining direct contact with the US embassy. Digital Transformation Minister Mykhailo Fedorov faced attempts to sideline him when drone purchases transferred from his ministry to the Cabinet.
Corruption surrounds Yermak’s office. His former deputy Andriy Smyrnov faces charges of illicit enrichment, money laundering, and bribery. Two other former deputies, Kyrylo Tymoshenko and Rostyslav Shurma, were investigated in corruption cases but not charged.
Why can’t Zelenskyy let Yermak go?
Yermak has no independent political base. He cannot run for office—according to a Razumkov poll, only 17.5% of Ukrainians trusted him in a March 2025 poll; 67% distrusted him. His power derives entirely from proximity to Zelenskyy. This dependency makes him the perfect instrument: he implements Zelenskyy’s wishes even when disagreeing.
Yermak is also convenient because he absorbs public criticism, taking heat that might otherwise be directed at Zelenskyy.
“This is probably a feature of Zelenskyy’s work,” Daria Kaleniuk explained to NV. “He trusts those who are near him. The government is far away, even physically far. But here’s Andriy Borysovych, always here, always comforting, always consoling, always finding solutions and always whispering in his ear.”
A law enforcement source told The Kyiv Independent they don’t expect Yermak’s dismissal despite the scandal. “What will Zelenskyy do without Yermak?” they asked with a smile.
Why does Zelenskyy keep Yanukovych’s enforcer?
The described pattern isn’t unique to Yermak. His deputy, Oleh Tatarov, shows the same logic even more starkly.
During the 2013-2014 Euromaidan Revolution, Tatarov served as deputy head of the Interior Ministry under Viktor Yanukovych. When police beat protesters on 11 December 2013, Tatarov justified it by “the need to guarantee safe passage of public transport.” When journalist Tetiana Chornovol was severely beaten, Tatarov suggested it “could be a provocation by the activist herself.”
When Automaidan leader Dmytro Bulatov was kidnapped and tortured, Tatarov claimed investigators were considering “a staged effort for provocation.”
On 19 February 2014, as 80 protesters died on Kyiv’s streets, Tatarov stated that police “did not use firearms” and suggested some victims had “wounds in the back of their heads, which makes it possible to conclude that nearby individuals made shots amid the protesters.” Five days later, he received the title “Honored Lawyer of Ukraine” from Yanukovych.
Today, Tatarov serves as Yermak’s deputy. Kaleniuk described him as “the coordinator of all law enforcement agencies” on behalf of Yermak, distributing tasks across the State Investigation Bureau, National Police, and Security Service of Ukraine.
In December 2020, NABU prepared bribery charges against Tatarov for allegedly facilitating kickbacks in construction contracts. Prosecutor General Iryna Venediktova suspended four prosecutors handling the case and transferred the investigation from NABU to the SBU—the latter widely seen as more loyal to Tatarov. The case eventually closed on technicalities. Transparency International called it “buried.”
Why can’t they fire him? Sources told The Kyiv Independent that Zelenskyy and Yermak “desperately needed Tatarov because they saw him as the only person who knew Ukraine’s law enforcement system well enough to run it in their interests.”
According to the Center for Countering Corruption, during the full-scale war, Tatarov allegedly allowed Viktor Medvedchuk (Putin's godfather’s son-in-law), former Deputy Head of the Presidential Administration Andriy Portnov, and Portnov's draft-age son to escape from Ukraine. Additionally, law enforcement sources reported that Tatarov attempted to unblock frozen accounts of the Mykolaiv Alumina Plant owned by Russian billionaire Oleg Deripaska.
Even a Yanukovych-era enforcer who justified beating protesters cannot be removed—because he “knows the system.” This is the dependency trap in its purest form.
Follow Euromaidan Press on Google News! Value this reporting? Support our work.
BECOME OUR PATRON!
The international problem
The dependency trap creates problems beyond Ukraine’s borders. After Donald Trump’s re-election in November 2024, members of Trump’s team made clear they don’t want to talk to Yermak. He’s seen as partisan due to ties with Jake Sullivan—President Biden’s National Security Advisor—and Yermak’s role in the Zelenskyy administration hasn’t been clearly defined for Trump's team. Yet Zelenskyy continues sending him to spearhead negotiations in Türkiye, France, the UK, and the US.
Politico reported in June 2025 that US officials “found Yermak to be uninformed about US politics, abrasive and overly demanding.” He “struggled to secure meetings with senior Trump administration officials,” with several meetings canceled. One Trump administration source described him as a “bipartisan irritator.”
One senior European official told The Kyiv Independent:
“We have to deal with him, he’s Zelenskyy's man. We don’t have a choice.”
The fact that Zelenskyy’s chief of staff is the least desired negotiator for key Ukrainian allies is an open secret and conversation topic at nearly every political gathering. Yet he remains Ukraine’s chief negotiator during its existential war—because there’s no one else who can execute Zelenskyy’s wishes across the system Yermak helped build.
The forces that could break the pattern
In July 2025, Zelenskyy attempted to strip NABU of independence to protect his inner circle. Teenagers with cardboard signs forced him to back down. In November, NABU released surveillance documenting exactly the corruption the July crackdown aimed to bury.
But the men who orchestrated that crackdown remain in power. Yermak—allegedly “Ali-Baba” on the tapes—continues as chief of staff. Tatarov—the Yanukovych enforcer who justified beating Euromaidan protesters—still influences the justice system.
The dependency trap Zelenskyy created makes them structurally irreplaceable.
Ukraine risks €50 billion in EU assistance over anti-corruption failures. Brussels has made it clear that pressure on Kyiv to clean up corruption, stop infighting between security services, and cease government harassment of NABU continues to intensify. The FBI coordinates with NABU on the Mindich case. Western governments watch whether investigations reach conclusions or stall, protecting the powerful.
Three forces now converge on this system: NABU’s continued investigations, EU institutional pressure backed by concrete financial consequences, and Ukrainian civil society’s demonstrated willingness to defend accountability even during war. The teenagers proved these battles can be won.
Whether the system can be broken depends on whether these forces can make Yermak and Tatarov more costly to keep than to remove.
The calculation that keeps them in power—they’re indispensable because they control the system—only works until their presence becomes more dangerous than their departure. That moment hasn’t arrived yet. But with each investigation, each frozen aid package, each protest, it gets closer.
Ukraine’s democratic institutions survived three years of existential war. They survived the July crackdown. NABU released the Mindich tapes anyway. The teenagers showed up anyway. The system protects itself—but it faces forces that have already proven they can force it to retreat. The question isn’t whether Ukraine can pass democracy’s ultimate test. The question is whether it will, and what the cost is if it doesn’t.
Follow Euromaidan Press on Google News! Value this reporting? Support our work.
BECOME OUR PATRON!
