Ukrainian MP on coming changes in Zelenskyy’s administration — interview

NV: The deputy head of the President’s Office, Rostyslav Shurma, gave another interview recently. The National Anti-Corruption Bureau of Ukraine (NABU) is investigating his brother’s business. In general, it turns out that he really likes to give interviews.

Zheleznyak: That doesn’t help him.

NV: And in every interview, he reveals some new, previously unknown things about himself, fragments of his biography. For example, journalists asked him about the whereabouts of his brother, whose business is under Russian occupation. And NABU is investigating the company receiving state subsidies. It turned out that his brother had left Ukraine and hadn’t returned since the beginning of the war. I think this is a very poignant moment.

Zheleznyak: And also find out if his brother bought an apartment in Cyprus. Or, not taking advantage of such a purchase, did he not get Cyprus residency, for which he established another shell company. A very odd coincidence, to say the least. We followed it up with investigative journalists.

Doesn’t he, for example, currently have licenses for mining diamonds in Africa? There are many things to investigate there. Or anything is being built in Hungary. They’re now building a residential house instead of the stadium in the city of Zaporizhzhya, namely the company of [Shurma’s] brother and two women who were selling notebooks in the city of Mariupol before the occupation. Didn’t the size of his venture fund increase from UAH 400 million ($11 million) to UAH 1.3 billion ($36 million)? We could ask many questions.

I understand that journalists wanted [to ask more questions]. But Rostyslav behaved so bravely that he decided to interrupt the interview and continue to tell his fantasies on economic recovery.

NV: Yes, he categorically didn’t want to talk about his brother. It turns out that this brother is now abroad. This is a matter of public interest.

Zheleznyak: It’s actually an interesting point. Together with nine of my fellow MPs, I appealed to NABU, the National Agency on Corruption Prevention (NACP), and the SBU security service. The SBU is generally reluctant to engage on this. We haven’t been able to bring them to court for a month so that they finally open cases. Namely the SBU, because it’s about the occupied territories where the solar power plants are. They worked, and we know that. We can see on satellite images how they were disassembled and assembled. The SBU isn’t interested in this: who are these wonderful people in the occupied territories who did this?

But there was another moment in the interview. Few people have noticed it, but it’s very interesting. There was some committee on energy, and Rostyslav handed out orders there. And as we can see from the interview of the head of the National Commission for State Regulation of Energy and Public Utilities, he directly confirmed that they had held such a meeting where he received orders from the deputy of the President’s Office, who manages the energy sector.

If this is true, this is an action in conditions of a direct conflict of interest. And here, to put it mildly, it’s already necessary to understand whether this is only a conflict of interests or an obvious abuse of power.

By the way, I immediately submitted a request to see the exact list of his official duties and responsibilities. I’m sure the President’s Office will, as usual, hide them. But this is a problem.

I think we’ll forget soon about such a character as Mr. Shurma. At least in the position of deputy head of the President’s Office. I don’t think he’ll be able to hold on to this position for long with such a background of corruption.

NV: Why do you think so? There is another deputy head with a no less colorful background, Oleh Tatarov. Why do you think that Rostyslav Shurma will not stay long? Tatarov has been sitting [in the President’s Office] for many years and nothing happened, because “he’s useful.”

Zheleznyak: I think we’ll soon lose Tatarov as well.

NV: Why? Why are you so confident? It seems they’re very happy with him. They say things pleasing to Zelenskyy, champion initiatives the president likes. Why should they be fired?

Zheleznyak: Because 63% of our budget isn’t filled by the president, or Yermak, not Tatarov, and not even Shurma. It’s filled by our international partners who would very much hate to end up in a situation where their taxpayers’ money is being stolen. And it’s quite clear who is responsible for corruption in our country.

And if we have such slipups on reconstruction, and obvious things like... Last Friday, Tatarov tried to “hack” the law on the Specialized Anti-Corruption Prosecutor’s Office (SAPO). It took an hour and a half to put everyone in their place and make the committee re-vote.

Now, this week, he’s trying to hack the reform of the Economic Security Bureau of Ukraine (ESBU). He’ll also fail. I immediately say that he’ll be shot down in flames and everything will end as it should.

Our international partners put up with this story for about the first two years of the war because [there were] slightly different challenges. And now, especially when the “money in exchange for reforms” formula is starting to work, explain to me, why do they have to put up with these two characters? And why do they have to ask the opinion of even the head of the President’s Office or the president, why are these people so useful?

Okay, if they’re useful, let them find $41 billion (as far as I understand, Rostyslav and his brother are already approaching some part of this amount), and donate it to the National Bank of Ukraine. We’ll put it in reserves instead of international partners. If not (and I have a feeling this will be the case), then, sorry, their opinion isn’t relevant.

NV: You mentioned SAPO. Last week, the lawmakers tried to strengthen SAPO’s dependence. And there is a ready government bill, but they tried to rush their own bill, which in no way strengthens SAPO.

Zheleznyak: This is my favorite story right now. Tatarov, together with the committee, spent three months preparing the interception plan for this bill. They prepared, postponed, hid the text, got together. They were told: “Guys, it won’t work, really, don’t even try.” They voted on their text.

An hour and a half later, the president brought them together and asked: “Who’s the author of this wonderful idea?” The lawmakers turned to Tatarov. Tatarov says: “I’m not involved in this.” And he ratted everyone out. Three hours later, the committee obediently voted on the correct bill. This is the “money in exchange for reforms” formula in action.

Now they’re trying to do the same with the ESB reform.

NV: That is, first they try to rush their own bill. If it works, they rush it, and if they see that it doesn’t work, then they do what they’re supposed to, right?

Zheleznyak: They do bad things in public, then they get it in the neck. Then they “eat up” something bad in public and do good things.

I can immediately predict what will happen with [Ukrainian MP Andriy] Lozovoy’s amendments to the bill. It’s obvious. There are intelligent people there... Sorry, but the only one among them who was significantly intellectually different was [notorious MP Maksym] Buzhanskyi who said: “I’m in favor of the government bill as a whole.” Why? Because he perfectly understands that we strengthen the bill with amendments before the second reading. And that’s why it’s better to cut what is there than to fight for the ephemeral. And he even said it from the rostrum. And this is a smart move, even if you’re an opponent of the idea.

And it’s interesting what Tatarov tried to do. Okay, he ratted his allied MPs out. Next time they’ll know whom to look out for.

NV: Tatarov attended an online meeting of the law enforcement committee. He should have said one thesis that the President’s Office supports the government bill on SAPO’s independence. But he didn’t say that.

Zheleznyak: I reiterate they spent three months preparing this interception plan. It was destroyed in an hour and a half. He ratted all the lawmakers out at the meeting in the President’s Office.