logo
Petro Poroshenko: ‘What Zelensky is doing is no different from Russia'

Petro Poroshenko: ‘What Zelensky is doing is no different from Russia'

Times10 hours ago
President Zelensky is seeking to 'remove any competitor from the political landscape' and rule Ukraine with an iron fist, a former president has said.
Petro Poroshenko, a political rival to Zelensky, accused him of 'authoritarianism' after the government sanctioned him this year, potentially preventing him from standing in an election.
'Why is he doing this? Because he hates me on a biological, chemical level,' Poroshenko said in an interview with The Times. 'And, frankly speaking, I also do not like Zelensky. But never during the war have I done anything that is hostile towards him.
'I am an elected person. I have the second-biggest faction in parliament. And he thinks that he has the power not to allow me to go to the parliamentary assembly? … You are simply violating the constitution. And there is absolutely no difference [in what he is doing] from Russia.'
• Zelensky's rivals plot path to Ukraine presidency
Although the Kremlin's autocratic hold over Russian society is a far cry from Ukraine's diverse and rambunctious political system, there are growing concerns about the concentration of power around Zelensky, which his ­supporters say is a consequence of the situation the country finds itself in.
Poroshenko, who was president from 2014 to 2019, insisted that he did not wish to criticise Zelensky but merely to offer him advice.
It is difficult, however, to distinguish between the two as the former president enumerates the 'very bad mistakes' made by his successor — the 'catastrophe' of the Oval Office meeting with President Trump in March, for example, or the creeping 'authoritarianism' of Zelensky's rule that he says threatens to undermine democracy.
'Learn from the experience of Bibi,' Poroshenko urged, referring to Binyamin Netanyahu, the Israeli prime minister, who successfully persuaded Trump to take part last month in strikes against Iran's nuclear programme.
Zelensky, by contrast, has struggled to maintain the mercurial US leader's support in bringing an end to the war with Russia, which Poroshenko believes is down to a lack of clear objectives in Ukraine's negotiations with the White House and its inability to handle Trump's desire for praise. Netanyahu, he suggests, won Trump's support in Iran after only allowing him to take the credit for negotiating a brief ceasefire in Gaza.
There is little love lost between the fifth and sixth presidents of Ukraine. A lasting animosity was engendered on the 2019 election campaign trail, during which the pair traded barbs in a series of increasingly irate debates. Zelensky, a man whose political experience had hitherto consisted of playing a fictional president in a television programme, went on to win the election resoundingly.
On the morning of February 24, 2022, however, as Russian tanks rumbled across the Ukrainian border, the two foes met in Kyiv and made a truce.
Three years on, that alliance has fractured. In February, the government imposed sanctions on Poroshenko, preventing him from accessing his bank accounts, travelling abroad or attending parliamentary sessions. State security services said that the sanctions were based on allegations of threats to national security, which Poroshenko denies.
Having largely refrained from criticising the government since the invasion, now he is speaking out to tell Zelensky: 'I am not your enemy.'
'I am shoulder to shoulder with you,' he said. 'Not because I don't have any complaints against you — that [will come] later on, after the end of the war. But now unity is the key factor for our success.'
Poro­shenko, 59, who is worth $1.8 billion according to Forbes, made a ­fortune from chocolate before entering politics. Elected in 2014 after the ­Maidan revolution that ousted his pro-Kremlin predecessor, he is widely credited with rebuilding the Ukrainian armed forces after the annexation of Crimea and onset of the war in Donbas.
Hanging on the wall of his office — alongside Ukrainian military regalia and a painting of Putin in handcuffs — is a memento of another of his successes in office: a certificate, signed in 2018 by Mike Pompeo, then Trump's secretary of state, vowing that the US would not recognise Russia's claim to Crimea.
It is diplomatic coups such as this, as well as his success in convincing Trump in 2017 to supply Ukraine with lethal weapons, that Poroshenko believes give him some authority in his criticisms of Zelensky's dealings with the American president.
There is, he claims, a 'serious communication problem' between the two diplomatic teams, at the heart of which is the Americans' distrust of Andriy Yermak, chief of staff to Zelensky, and Oksana Markarova, the ambassador to Washington, who angered the Republicans before the American election by organising an event to which only Democrats were invited.
The result was the disastrous meeting in the Oval Office, when Trump and JD Vance, Trump's vice-president, berated the Ukrainian leader before the world in a meeting that Zelensky had not been adequately prepared for, Poroshenko said. However, Trump said that a meeting with Zelensky at the Nato summit last week 'couldn't have been nicer'.
Poroshenko has sought to make connections with Trump's team directly, last visiting Washington in February, when he met US officials and attended the National Prayer Breakfast, at which Trump made a speech.
Sanctions now prevent him from travelling abroad, and also hamper his support for the Ukrainian military, to which he says he has donated $200 million in the past three years.
According to Poroshenko, the purpose of the sanctions is to prevent him from running in a presidential election, a possibility that has been raised for this year during talks of ceasefire.
• Fall guy: Trump's Russia deal is aimed at ousting Zelensky
An election had been due last year, but has been delayed under martial law imposed in 2022. Because of the logistics of holding an election in wartime, most people oppose the idea — Poroshenko among them. But he believes that his sanctioning is evidence of the government's preparation for a vote for which it is seeking to clear the field and allow ­Zelensky to run virtually unopposed — a claim the president's team denies.
Even if ­Poroshenko does stand, his odds of a victory are long. Many Ukrainians are yet to forgive the corruption and economic stagnation that marred his time in office, and polling consistently shows the former president in third place, roughly 20 points behind Zelensky and General Valerii Zaluzhny, the former top military commander who is now serving as ambassador to Britain. The general's war record has won him admiration in Ukraine, but he has shown no interest in standing for election.
In any case, Poroshenko says, his sanctioning should be a warning to every potential candidate. 'Today ­Poroshenko, tomorrow Zaluzhny, [the] day after tomorrow anybody,' he said. 'This is authoritarianism.'
For all that Poroshenko wishes to present himself as a figure of unity in a time of national crisis, rising illiberalism is a charge he is willing to give full throat to, citing clampdowns on the freedom of press and of public activists, and pressure on businesses. In this, he runs the risk of playing into the hands of both the Kremlin and US isolationists, who have used the postponement of elections to attack Zelensky.
Among those who agree with Poroshenko is Vitali Klitschko, the mayor of Kyiv and a former world champion boxer, whose hulking frame arrived through the door of Poroshenko's office as The Times was leaving.
Klitschko, who is said to harbour presidential ambitions of his own, has also criticised Zelensky for a series of recent police raids at his mayoral office and investigations into his staff. 'I said once that it smells of authoritarianism in our country,' he told The Times in May. 'Now it stinks.'
Asked whether he and Klitschko were ­working together in preparation for a presidential campaign, Poroshenko said that they were not but added portentously that more and more people were becoming critical of the president's conduct. 'Zelensky should listen to that, because if you are closed from the people that can have the effect of a steaming pot,' he said.
Whether it will boil over remains to be seen.
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Israel-Gaza live: Trump says Israel has agreed to 60-day ceasefire in war against Hamas
Israel-Gaza live: Trump says Israel has agreed to 60-day ceasefire in war against Hamas

Sky News

time15 minutes ago

  • Sky News

Israel-Gaza live: Trump says Israel has agreed to 60-day ceasefire in war against Hamas

Analysis: Why Israel wants a 60-day ceasefire and not a permanent one By Mark Stone, US correspondent In the long Gaza war, this is a significant moment. For the people of Gaza, for the Israeli hostages and their families - this could be the moment it ends. But we have been here before, so many times. The key question - will Hamas accept what Israel has agreed to: a 60-day ceasefire? At the weekend, a source at the heart of the negotiations told me: "Both Hamas and Israel are refusing to budge from their position - Hamas wants the ceasefire to last until a permanent agreement is reached. Israel is opposed to this. At this point only President Trump can break this deadlock." The source added: "Unless Trump pushes, we are in a stalemate." The problem is that the announcement made now by Donald Trump - which is his social-media-summarised version of whatever Israel has actually agreed to - may just amount to Israel's already-established position. We don't know the details and conditions attached to Israel's proposals. Would Israeli troops withdraw from Gaza? Totally? Or partially? How many Palestinian prisoners would they agree to release from Israel's jails? And why only 60 days? Why not a total ceasefire? What are they asking of Hamas in return? We just don't know the answers to any of these questions, except one. We do know why Israel wants a 60-day ceasefire, not a permanent one. It's all about domestic politics. If Benjamin Netanyahu were to agree now to a permanent ceasefire, the extreme right-wingers in his coalition would collapse his government. Itamar Ben-Gvir and Bezalel Smotrich have both been clear about their desire for the war to continue. They hold the balance of power in Netanyahu's coalition. If Netanyahu instead agrees to just 60 days - which domestically he can sell as just a pause - then that may placate the extreme right-wingers for a few weeks until the Israeli parliament, the Knesset, is adjourned for the summer. It is also no coincidence that the US president has called for Netanyahu's corruption trial to be scrapped. Without the prospect of jail, Netanyahu might be more willing to quit the war, safe in the knowledge that focus will not shift immediately to his own political and legal vulnerability.

The 19 seconds that killed Keir's premiership
The 19 seconds that killed Keir's premiership

Telegraph

timean hour ago

  • Telegraph

The 19 seconds that killed Keir's premiership

Every Prime Minister has a defining moment, a decision, crisis, triumph or more likely blunder that etches itself in the public mind and shapes their legacy. For Major, it was Black Wednesday. For May, the dead-in-the-water Chequers deal. For Sunak, the D-Day disappearance. Keir Starmer's came on July 30, 2024, less than a month after he entered Number 10. As he placed his floral tribute among hundreds of others at a police cordon in Southport, hovering wordlessly for less than 20 seconds, he was heckled by members of the public, who shouted, 'How many more children? Our kids are dead and you're leaving already?' That excruciating scene crystallised in many minds the sense that Starmer was the wrong leader at the wrong time. He was the antithesis of Tony Blair after the death of Princess Diana; Starmer would not – could not – rise to the occasion. Try as he might, the words wouldn't come. And they've never come since as successive problems unfolded, as they do for Prime Ministers in the twenty-first century. Donorgate, Rosie Duffield, the riots and Lucy Connolly, Sue Gray, the Budget, Louise Haigh, Tulip Siddiq, Israel, the Winter Fuel Allowance U-turn, the trans women U-turn, the 'island of strangers' U-turn, the assisted dying absence… somehow the words never flow. Ill at ease, repetitious, robotic – and increasingly tetchy. Starmer's Southport moment may not yet have seared into public minds in the same way, as say, Gordon Brown's Bigotgate meltdown, but they are as telling of his premiership's weaknesses. As we approach the anniversary of the general election, we can trace Starmer's demise to that fateful moment in Lancashire. In the aftermath of July 4, his approval rating was +10. By mid-August, it was +3; by mid-September it had dropped to -26 and it hasn't recovered. The country is now more divided, not less, than it was last summer. The Government's own report on the unrest suggested another disturbance is likely. Already, violence has erupted on the streets of Ballymena in Northern Ireland, following the alleged sexual assault of a teenage girl by two 14-year old boys of Romanian descent. Where are the efforts to repair the fraying fabric of our society? Where are the attempts to counteract claims of skewed justice, which thanks to Bob Vylan's pathetic stunt at Glastonbury are now reaching fever pitch? To restore trust in our institutions, which is at an all time low? To assuage public concern that democracy is being subverted, the needs of our citizens sidelined by the judicial blob? This week it was reported that the same immigration judge who ruled that an Albanian with 50 convictions can stay in the UK because his crimes were 'not extreme' enough to warrant deportation was one of the barristers who fought the Tories' Rwanda scheme in 2023. We don't believe Starmer will confront this; we consider this superannuated lawyer and his Best Buddy The Lord Hermer to be part of the problem. How will Labour ease fears that more and more of our towns have a real element of menace to them at night, surely not helped by the decision of the last government to place unvetted men in local hotels? That many women feel less safe walking our streets? Their only solutions are displacement activity: bans on zombie knives, more social media censorship, ramping up the anti-'populist' rhetoric. If this is the picture for Starmer at the national level, one of plunging confidence and mounting betrayal, politically it's even worse. The Universal Credit and Personal Independence Payments Bill may have scraped through its Second Reading but the PM's authority is shot. He cannot recover from all the indecision, the sense he is buffeted by events, a hostage – or sausage – to internal pressure rather than a politician who will drive policy through with conviction. His MPs – and indeed his chief of staff – seem to consider him a chump. So the pack is turning on him – with arguably the worst culprit ersatz Mancunian Andy Burnham, who has long been positioning himself for a (third) bid for the crown. MPs are queuing up to put the boot in. They're fractious, disillusioned, and too many in number. They're also largely nonentities, career politicians, union officials, charity and public sector workers with little to no grasp of how private enterprise works, just treating it as an endless source of wonga, to be slandered, bullied and coerced as the mood takes them. Yet they consider themselves latter-day Nye Bevans, sniffing fastidiously that they didn't go into politics to cut benefits. They care little for the fact that the total cost for PIP alone is expected to reach £35 billion by the end of this decade, up from £16 billion by 2024-25. Someone else can pay, probably you and me. The total benefits bill, if you include the state pension, universal credit and other benefits, could hit £324 billion by 2030. How is sustaining this tower of cards noble? Keir Starmer's instincts to cut benefits back was right, but he couldn't stick to it. His tragedy, which will endure for the next four years unless the Westminster assassins put him out of his misery, is that even when he is right, he gets it wrong. Agents of the state On the subject of displacement activity, do spare a thought for Britain's supermarkets, unfailingly reliable, endlessly pilloried. The average big store stocks 20,000 items including 40 different types of fresh vegetable, offering choice, convenience and low prices to their consumers. Yet in March 2023, their chiefs were hauled into Defra to explain why some shelves were bare. And now, Wes Streeting is attempting to turn them into agents of the state. Supermarkets could be required to report sales data, with those who somehow fail to control what their customers buy facing fines. It's not just supermarkets, either, but restaurants. Picture the armies of staff closely monitoring our consumption, noting down whether we finish our side of fries. The Health Secretary claims he's not 'meddling', but rather 'working with' these businesses. In much the same way an interrogator 'works with' a prisoner beneath their jackboot. Labour insist growth is their priority; now they want to squander productive resources on restaurant compliance officials. Against stiff competition, Streeting could yet turn out to be Labour's most disappointing cabinet minister.

Migrants could be barred from asylum in Britain under deal with France
Migrants could be barred from asylum in Britain under deal with France

Telegraph

timean hour ago

  • Telegraph

Migrants could be barred from asylum in Britain under deal with France

Channel migrants could be barred from claiming asylum in the UK under plans for a 'one-in, one-out' returns deal with France. The two countries are preparing to announce a deal where the French take back migrants who have illegally crossed the Channel in small boats, while the UK accepts a similar number of asylum seekers from France. This so-called 'one-in, one-out' agreement is an attempt to break the business model of the people-smuggling gangs by showing that migrants will be returned to France once they reach UK shores. In order to return the migrants to France, however, immigration advisers say that ministers will be required to deny them the right to claim asylum in the UK. It comes as the number of migrants crossing the Channel this year passed the 20,000 mark, a new record for the first half of the year. On Tuesday, the Home Office confirmed 19,982 migrants had arrived by the end of June, 48 per cent higher than the same point last year. One option for returning migrants would be to use the Tories' 2022 Nationality and Borders Act, which allows the Government to declare a Channel migrant's asylum claim inadmissible, specifically when a person has a connection to a safe third country, according to legal experts. This means that the UK could deem a claim inadmissible if the migrant had travelled through France, a safe country to which they could be returned. Under the deal, there would be a parallel process in France where a joint UK-French system would be set up to identify asylum seekers who could come to the UK. Yvette Cooper, the Home Secretary, is thought to believe migrants in France with a family connection in the UK should be prioritised. Some experts, however, believe that the process confirming family links could be complex and have suggested it would be more practicable to target migrants from countries with high rates of asylum grants. The scheme is said by sources to be 'evolving' and 'a work in progress', but there are hopes it could be trailed at next week's Anglo-French summit from July 8 to 10, when President Emmanuel Macron comes to London for his state visit. It would be a major breakthrough after Brexit killed off a previous returns agreement with the EU. The Government is proposing to pilot the scheme to iron out any problems. It is unclear how long it could take to declare Channel migrants' asylum claims inadmissible and give them an opportunity to make any appeals against their return. The Tories only removed 23 migrants whose claims were deemed inadmissible. Migrants are likely to be returned to locations across France, away from its northern coasts. Any that tried to re-enter would be identified through their biometric details and sent back once again. The European Commission has contacted the UK because of concerns among other countries, including Italy, Spain and Greece, that the one-in, one-out deal could mean they face an influx of deported migrants. Under the EU's Dublin agreement, migrants can be sent back to the EU country where they first landed. 'We are in contact with the French and the UK authorities to ensure the necessary clarifications are made,' a European Commission spokesman said. France has also agreed to start intercepting migrant 'taxi boats' at sea for the first time after previously refusing to do so for fear of breaching maritime safety laws. The policy change will see elite French police officers authorised to stop boats within 300 metres of shore and is expected to be confirmed at the summit. Two major resettlement routes that brought Afghan refugees to the UK are to be closed, the Government announced on Tuesday. More than 30,000 Afghans have been brought to the UK, but charities warned that it closed a 'lifeline' to thousands more who could seek to flee the Taliban. 'Four years on from the Taliban takeover, people in Afghanistan are still in need of protection, and this sudden closure comes with no clear plan for people at real risk and in need of safety,' said Enver Solomon, chief executive of the Refugee Council.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store