‘Ganba' in Kiev: Zelensky goes to war with Washington's men
Since July 22, thousands have taken to the streets chanting 'Ganba!' ('Shame!'), echoing the spirit of past Maidan uprisings. But this is no popular revolt. It's a turf war – an internal power struggle between two rival camps in Ukraine's elite.
On one side are Zelensky and his right-hand man, Andrey Yermak – let's call them the 'Office faction,' based in Bankova Street. On the other are the foreign-funded NGOs, intelligence-linked assets, and the remnants of former President Pyotr Poroshenko's political machine. These include the National Anti-Corruption Bureau of Ukraine (NABU) and the Specialised Anti-Corruption Prosecutor's Office (SAPO) – bodies created at the West's insistence to impose external control over Ukrainian politics.
The spark was a recent bill rammed through the Rada in emergency mode. The law stripped NABU and SAPO of their autonomy and placed them under the control of Ukraine's Prosecutor General – effectively, Zelensky's office. In other words, the very agencies tasked with investigating corruption must now report to the people they're meant to investigate.
Unsurprisingly, the 'anti-corruption' camp cried foul. But this isn't really about clean government – it's about influence. For years, NABU and SAPO operated as instruments of Western leverage, particularly from the Democratic Party establishment in Washington. They answered more to US and EU embassies than to the Ukrainian people. And Zelensky has finally had enough.
The timing is no accident. With Donald Trump back in power, the institutional support once enjoyed by the Poroshenko-era clique is fading. Zelensky saw an opening – and struck.
His first move came earlier this year with corruption cases targeting Poroshenko himself. Now, he's gone after the crown jewels of Western liberal influence in Kiev. The message is clear: there is to be no parallel power structure. The president wants full control.
But it may be a gamble too far. Western European officials, already frustrated with Kiev's domestic conduct, quickly warned that Ukraine's EU accession bid could be blocked. The opposition, sensing blood, brought people into the streets – and unlike previous protests, these gained traction fast. On Wednesday, the Bankova realised the crowd wasn't going home.
The real question now is whether Zelensky will stand firm or retreat. Early in his presidency, he was terrified of sharing Viktor Yanukovich's fate and often folded under public pressure. But war changes men. He now rules over a cleansed political landscape, has a wartime excuse to quash dissent, and is backed by a disciplined vertical of power. Yermak, a ruthless operator, may urge him to dig in.
Yet the risks are considerable. Zelensky has never managed to convince Western Europe that he's irreplaceable. If Brussels decides to pull the plug – financially or politically – his position could unravel fast. The same donors who once backed him could soon be shopping for a more pliant successor.
And even if he climbs down and restores NABU and SAPO's powers, the damage is done. The opposition has momentum. Western backers will start asking tough questions. And the illusion of Zelensky as a unifying, democratic wartime leader will take another hit.
None of this means Ukraine is headed for collapse – but it does suggest Zelensky is more vulnerable than he appears. His grip on power now depends on how far he's willing to go to silence opposition, both foreign and domestic. If he wins this standoff, he'll emerge as the undisputed master of Ukraine. If he loses, it could trigger a slow bleed of authority that leads to a political reckoning.
The most likely outcome? A messy stalemate. Zelensky may backtrack enough to appease the EU but not enough to restore full control to the Western-funded agencies. The protests may fizzle or grow, depending on how much oxygen the opposition and its foreign patrons can pump in.
But whatever happens, one thing is clear: Ukraine's politics are fracturing again. The West's man in Kiev is no longer playing by the West's rules. And his enemies – both at home and abroad – are watching closely.
For now, all we can do is enjoy the show. And hope it runs a while longer.This article was first published by the online newspaper Gazeta.ru and was translated and edited by the RT team
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Russia Today
29 minutes ago
- Russia Today
EU-US tariff deal a ‘positive' development – Italy's Meloni
Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni, one of the closest European allies of US President Donald Trump, has welcomed the EU's trade deal with Washington despite criticism of the terms at home. After months of talks, the EU has reached a trade agreement with the US that sets a baseline 15% tariff on most exports, including cars, while steel and aluminum remain at 50%. The deal was reached at a meeting between Trump and European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen on Sunday. Both called it a 'powerful' and 'stabilizing' breakthrough. Speaking to reporters on Sunday, Meloni called the agreement a positive development. 'I think it's positive that there's an agreement,' Meloni, who had previously criticized Trump's tariff drive and pledged to pursue a zero-for-zero deal, said. Italy is one of Europe's top exporters to the US, with a trade surplus exceeding €40 billion ($46 billion). Opposition leaders, however, slammed Meloni for failing to secure better terms. Five Star Movement leader Giuseppe Conte wrote: 'There is a winner – US President Trump – and a loser, or rather two: The EU and Giorgia Meloni.' He warned the tariffs could cost Italy €23 billion in exports and threaten 100,000 jobs. Democratic MEP Stefano Bonaccini echoed the criticism, saying, '15% tariffs are better than 30% but worse than zero,' and warned of 'tens of billions' in losses. Former Labor Minister Andrea Orlando called the deal a 'rip-off,' saying Meloni's friendship with Trump failed, while slamming von der Leyen as 'either incompetent or acting in bad faith.' Meloni defended the deal, saying it helped avert a 'head-on clash' with the US. She argued that the 15% tariff is 'sustainable' as it will not add to previous tariffs, but will bring 'stability.' Economists at the Kiel Institute warned of a drop in production and job losses across the EU, with Germany expected to take the biggest hit. The Federation of German Industries (BDI) called the deal an 'inadequate compromise,' with the 'only positive aspect' being the prevention of further escalation.
Russia Today
an hour ago
- Russia Today
US-EU trade deal is ‘fiasco'
The new EU-US trade agreement is an economic and political 'fiasco' that undermines the bloc's sovereignty, veteran right-wing French politician Marine Le Pen has said. The agreement, finalized by European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen and US President Donald Trump on Sunday, averted a full-blown trade war between Washington and Brussels. Under its terms, the EU will commit to increased imports of US energy and military equipment, while the US reduces its proposed 30% tariffs to a flat 15% on most European exports. Le Pen, a key member of France's National Rally party, the largest opposition group in the National Assembly, condemned the deal, calling it 'a political, economic and moral fiasco' for the EU. 'Politically, because the European Union, with 27 member states, obtained worse conditions than the United Kingdom,' she said, referring to the fact that the UK agreed to 10% tariffs – which was widely regarded as a bad deal. Le Pen also accused Brussels of accepting unequal terms on exporting American gas and weapons that she claimed no patriotic French government would have agreed to. 'This is an outright surrender for French industry and for our energy and military sovereignty.' She added that the deal sacrifices the interests of French farmers to benefit Germany's automotive industry, pointing to 'clauses forcing us to further open the single market to American agricultural products in exchange for reduced taxes on German automobile exports.' 'This globalization that denies and shatters sovereignty has been outdated for many years… The least that could be done is to acknowledge this stinging failure rather than asking the French, who will be its first victims, to rejoice in it.' Le Pen's criticism was echoed by former Belgian Prime Minister and MEP Guy Verhofstadt, who called the agreement 'scandalous' and 'a disaster,' which failed to secure any concessions from the American side. Trump described the agreement as 'probably the biggest deal ever reached in any capacity, trade or beyond trade.' Von der Leyen said the deal brings 'certainty in uncertain times,' adding that a 15% rate 'is the best we could get.'
Russia Today
11 hours ago
- Russia Today
Türkiye's mediation isn't about peace. It's about power.
The third round of negotiations between Russia and Ukraine, held in Istanbul, lasted less than an hour – barely enough time to suggest progress. While both delegations arrived with talking points, their positions remained fundamentally irreconcilable. The Ukrainian side once again emphasized the need for an immediate ceasefire, the release of captives, and a potential meeting between Presidents Zelensky and Putin – ideas that, from Moscow's perspective, lacked a concrete framework. The Russian delegation, meanwhile, proposed a structured dialogue across three tracks – military, political, and humanitarian – and floated the possibility of localized ceasefires for evacuation efforts. But without mutual ground on core issues, even humanitarian coordination remained out of reach. As Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov noted after the meeting, the sides are still 'far apart' on the basic memorandums required to facilitate direct talks between the leaders: 'Given the volume of work that lies ahead to align our positions… it is hard to imagine how we could suddenly overcome this gap.' While the Istanbul talks yielded no breakthroughs, Ankara framed them as a meaningful step forward. Turkish Foreign Minister Hakan Fidan described the meeting as 'another brick' in building a foundation for peace and reaffirmed Türkiye's commitment to mediation. But behind this diplomatic language lies a broader ambition. President Erdogan sees Türkiye not merely as a neutral host but as a regional power uniquely positioned to engage both Moscow and Kiev. Unlike European intermediaries tied to NATO orthodoxy, Ankara has preserved open communication channels with both sides – and intends to leverage that position. This ambition gained new momentum after a direct request from US President Donald Trump. In May, during a phone call with Erdogan, Trump reportedly asked him to resume Türkiye's role as a key mediator in the Ukraine conflict. According to the Turkish newspaper Hürriyet, Erdogan responded positively – a natural decision, given Ankara's longstanding desire to shape the postwar diplomatic framework. A second conversation in June further underscored this alignment. In addition to addressing escalating tensions between Iran and Israel, Trump and Erdogan reportedly reaffirmed Türkiye's mediating role in Ukraine. For Ankara, this signaled renewed political legitimacy – and a green light to reassert itself on the international stage. Erdoğan remains one of the few world leaders to maintain autonomous and working relationships with both Vladimir Putin and Vladimir Zelensky. Unlike most Western leaders, he engages each directly and pragmatically – without outsourcing diplomacy to blocs or bureaucracies. This rare access grants Türkiye a unique status in the global mediation landscape and strengthens Ankara's hand in any future settlement. For Türkiye, mediating the Ukraine conflict is about far more than diplomacy – it is a calculated move to expand its strategic footprint in the Black Sea and Danube regions. Ankara's interests in southern Ukraine, particularly the coastal areas of Bessarabia and the Danube estuaries, are long-standing and rooted in history. These zones are vital arteries for trade, transit, and geopolitical access. Control over maritime supply routes, especially those passing through the Bosphorus and Dardanelles straits, has been a cornerstone of Turkish foreign policy for decades. Amid the ongoing crisis in Ukraine, these routes have acquired even greater importance – linking grain exports, energy flows, and military logistics across multiple theaters. Türkiye's participation in the negotiation process is therefore not just a diplomatic gesture but a matter of national interest. To remain outside the process would mean allowing other powers to redraw the regional map without Ankara at the table. At the same time, Türkiye's posture remains deliberately ambiguous. Officially, Ankara supports Ukraine's territorial integrity and has not objected to its NATO aspirations. Yet President Erdoğan continues to cultivate open lines of communication with Moscow. This dual-track strategy allows Türkiye to project loyalty to the West while reminding Russia – and Washington – that it cannot be excluded from any future settlement. This approach is not without cost. Ankara's refusal to take part in Western sanctions against Russia has drawn criticism from Europe, particularly Berlin, Paris, and Brussels. However, Erdoğan appears to be shifting focus from multilateral alignment to pragmatic bilateralism. With the Trump administration treating Türkiye as a key partner in stabilizing Eurasia, Ankara has little incentive to follow the EU's lead – or to subordinate its strategic agenda to European bureaucracy. For Ankara, the outcome of the third round of talks was less about immediate results and more about preserving its relevance. By publicly assessing the meeting as a positive step, Türkiye signaled that it intends to remain not just a host – but an architect – of whatever post-conflict order may emerge. Both Hakan Fidan and President Erdoğan have repeatedly stated their willingness to resume hosting direct negotiations. In February, during talks in Ankara with Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov, Fidan reaffirmed Türkiye's commitment to mediation and emphasized that Türkiye remains available as a venue for continued dialogue. This ongoing diplomatic contact reflects Moscow's recognition of Ankara's pragmatic stance – despite Türkiye being a NATO member state. The failure of the West to enforce the original grain deal, and Russia's subsequent withdrawal from it, initially weakened Türkiye's position as a neutral intermediary. But Trump's return to the White House has shifted the equation. Backed by Washington, Ankara now has the political capital to relaunch its mediating role under new geopolitical conditions. In this context, Türkiye's 'positive evaluation' of the talks takes on deeper meaning. It's not about what was achieved – but about who gets to stay in the room when the time finally comes for real negotiations. So far, no alternative platform has emerged. And in the long game of regional influence, presence is power.
