Thread by @PeteLiquid

🧵1/6 - 🇺🇦 Law against NABU signed. The consequences of Zelenskyy’s choice

Part 1: Protests Erupt Over NABU Law

Tuesday evening was packed with events in Ukraine. Protests erupted against the recently passed law restricting the powers of the National Anti-Corruption Bureau of Ukraine (NABU). Though the demonstrations were not massive, they still marked the first large-scale political protests in Kyiv since the beginning of Russia’s full-scale invasion. For the first time in three years, slogans like “Zelya-devil,” “Yermak to hell,” and “The Office has overstayed its welcome” echoed through the capital’s streets.

These events have already sparked comparisons with Yanukovich’s 2013 decision to refuse signing the EU Association Agreement in Vilnius -- and, by extension, raised expectations of a new Maidan.

All political forces opposed to Zelenskyy have been emboldened. Even media outlets linked to Ihor Kolomoyski -- which, despite their owner’s arrest, have typically shown full loyalty to the Presidential Office -- this time gave detailed coverage to the protest. Kyiv Mayor Vitali Klitschko attended the rally in person, along with his brother and numerous opposition lawmakers.

Part 2: The President’s Signature and Political Calculus

Adding intrigue, there was no official confirmation until the very end of the day whether the president had actually signed the law. This fuelled rumours that Zelenskyy had hesitated and was wavering -- unsure whether to sign or not. The speculation intensified when the president’s signature briefly appeared on the Verkhovna Rada’s website, then disappeared.

But the suspense didn’t last long. Soon, the signature reappeared, and the law was officially published in the government newspaper Holos Ukrayiny -- meaning it entered into force immediately, as of today, July 23.

Despite the rumours of hesitation, the president’s signature was entirely expected. Everyone understood from the outset that only one person in Ukraine could have ordered a wave of searches at NABU, and then orchestrated a parliamentary vote under special operation conditions to pass a law limiting the Bureau’s powers. And that person is not Yermak, Malyuk, or Kravchenko. It is Zelensky.

Part 3: Why Zelenskyy Had No Choice

Therefore, if Zelenskyy had suddenly backed down, it could have had fatal consequences for his entire power structure.
NABU would have inevitably opened criminal cases against many of his allies -- including close associates. All past corruption scandals would have been revived. Meanwhile, other law enforcement agencies, sensing Zelensky’s retreat, would have adopted a wait-and-see approach, no longer rushing to follow presidential orders -- as would civil servants across the board.

Thus, once Zelensky had initiated the dismantling of the anti-corruption vertical, he had no choice but to see the process through to the end -- which is exactly what he did.

What happens next? Since NABU and the Specialised Anti-Corruption Prosecutor’s Office (SAPO) were created at the West’s initiative to maintain oversight over Ukraine’s leadership, numerous forecasts have already emerged about tough measures the West might take -- including sanctions against Ukrainian officials, suspension of the EU visa-free regime, termination of military and financial aid, or even Zelensky’s removal from power.

Part 4: The Presidential Office’s Strategy and Beliefs

However, according to our sources, the mindset inside the Presidential Office (referred to as “Bankova”) is completely different.
There, officials believe that Trump couldn’t care less about the anti-corruption system established with the help of the U.S. Democratic Party. And they think European countries will not dare impose harsh measures on a country at war.

Moreover, they believe the criminal cases against Oleksiy Chernishov and other close allies of Zelensky -- which essentially triggered the crackdown on NABU -- were not initiated as part of any Western-imposed agenda, but rather stemmed from the independent initiative of the alliance between Petro Poroshenko and grant-funded activists. These activists, though deprived of their “patronage” and losing the “guiding hand” of U.S. Democrats, still maintained influence over NABU and the selection of judges and law enforcement leaders through so-called “international experts.” According to the prevailing narrative within the Presidential Office, these forces decided to strike at Zelensky by launching criminal investigations into his inner circle -- aiming to sharply weaken his domestic political position and destabilise the situation in the country.

In response, Zelenskyy decided to fully bring the entire anti-corruption apparatus under his control -- to prevent such a scenario from unfolding again.

Part 5: Risks and the Road Ahead

In this world-view, the Presidential Office ("Bankova") believes it does not need to fear sharp reactions from the West, and that any internal protests can be swiftly dealt with -- for example, by regularly sending mobile TSK (Tactical Control Groups) units to demonstrations (if any more occur).

Another point is that the alliance of grant-funded activists, Poroshenko, and several other opposition figures also face a critical moment. Poroshenko stands on the brink of being imprisoned. Klitschko risks losing his position as mayor. The grant-funded activists face the prospect of following in the footsteps of Vitaliy Shabunin -- that is, being formally suspected in various criminal cases. Some, like Tomas Fiala, the owner of Ukrainska Pravda, could fall under NSDC (National Security and Defense Council) sanctions and effectively lose their entire business.

Therefore, they will resist. And this entire group still possesses resources -- media, organisational, and financial. Protests, media campaigns to discredit Zelenskyy in both Ukrainian and Western outlets, and possibly attempts to incite parts of the military to protest -- all of this will be part of their strategy.

However, it remains to be seen how effective these efforts will be. So far, even high-profile military figures have been reluctant to publicly comment on the NABU issue. In society at large, the topic has not yet triggered significant resonance, except among a relatively small, politically active segment. That said, protest potential does exist in the country. There is widespread dissatisfaction among both the elite and the general population. If protest organizers manage to move beyond the narrow agenda centred on NABU and begin addressing broader issues -- such as abuse during mobilisation, extrajudicial punishments via NSDC sanctions, and pressure on businesses -- Zelensky’s situation could become significantly more difficult.

The situation for the Presidential Office would become even worse if their calculation proves wrong --specifically, if the West does not remain silent (and especially if Trump does not take a neutral stance) after the dismantling of the anti-corruption framework. Even more dangerous would be a scenario in which growing internal tensions coincide with a sudden deterioration at the front. In such a case, maintaining control would become far more difficult for Zelensky.

Source: Strana UA

@threadreaderapp unroll