Protesters chant ‘Zelensky is the devil' in Kiev (VIDEO)
Zelensky had just signed a bill into law granting the Prosecutor General's Office authority to intervene in the operations of the National Anti-Corruption Bureau (NABU) and the Specialized Anti-Corruption Prosecutor's Office (SAPO). The move followed security raids on NABU offices and the arrest of a senior official accused of spying for Russia. The legislation sparked concern in the EU and drew sharp criticism from opposition politicians.
Demonstrators gathered in central Kiev, chanting 'Zelya is the devil,' using a mocking diminutive of Zelensky's surname. Others shouted 'Shame' and 'Treason,' while holding signs demanding the preservation of the anti-corruption system's independence. The chants reportedly intensified after news broke that Zelensky had ignored calls to veto the bill.
"Zelya is the devil!" the protesters shout in Kiev. https://t.co/gZspzFNJgHpic.twitter.com/ToZMIBeMhL
Similar demonstrations took place across Ukraine, including in Odessa and Dnepr – the country's third- and fourth-largest cities. Rallies were also held in Lviv, near the Polish border, and in Sumy, an eastern city close to the front line with Russia.
Kiev Mayor Vitaly Klitschko, a frequent critic of Zelensky, joined the protest in the capital. 'It's important for me to be here. Our partners created and funded the anti-corruption bodies, and over the past ten years did everything to ensure they could function. And now, the authorities want to strip them of their independence,' the former boxing champion told the US state-funded Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty.
Earlier on Telegram, Klitschko accused Zelensky's government of 'using the war as a pretext to dismantle the anti-corruption agencies' and pushing Ukraine toward authoritarianism.
In a video address early Wednesday, Zelensky defended the new law as a necessary step to streamline corruption investigations and eliminate 'Russian influence.'
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Russia Today
5 hours ago
- Russia Today
‘Ganba' in Kiev: Zelensky goes to war with Washington's men
Ukraine is seeing its first mass protests since the start of the conflict with Russia – and they're not about battlefield losses or conscription raids, but corruption. Or rather, a particular kind of corruption: the kind linked to Vladimir Zelensky's attempts to seize control of the anti-corruption agencies. 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 article was first published by the online newspaper and was translated and edited by the RT team
Russia Today
5 hours ago
- Russia Today
Zelensky backpedals on anti-corruption agencies crackdown
Ukraine's Vladimir Zelensky announced a bill on Thursday restoring the independence of the country's anti-graft agencies, after facing a wave of mass protests at home and a storm of criticism in the West. It comes two days after he signed a law granting the Prosecutor General's office the authority to intervene in the activities of the National Anti-Corruption Bureau (NABU) and Specialized Anti-Corruption Prosecutor's Office (SAPO). That followed a law enforcement raid on NABU offices and the arrest of a senior employee of the agency accused of spying for Russia. The new legislation contains 'full-fledged guarantees of the independence of anti-corruption agencies,' Zelensky claimed, adding that it is also designed to 'keep out' any alleged Russian interference. Specifically, the draft law introduces mandatory lie detector tests for employees of the NABU, SAPO and other agencies. 'The text of the bill was discussed with partners, law enforcement agencies, and representatives of the NABU and SAPO. There were many proposals from our partners to involve European experts – from the UK, Germany, and the EU,' he said. The about-face comes after the country endured a wave of protests against the clampdown on the agencies. Demonstrations were seen across the country, including in the capital Kiev, Odessa and Dnepr – the country's third- and fourth-largest cities – the western city of Lviv, and others. Critics have accused Zelensky of authoritarian tendencies and attempting to further tighten his grip on power, and argued that the move rendered the agencies 'purely decorative.' The crackdown was condemned by Kiev's key western backers, including European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen, who demanded Zelensky 'respect the rule of law' and warned it could derail Ukraine's EU membership bid. The NABU and SAPO were established following the US-backed 2014 coup in Kiev and promoted as key components of reforms supposed to align Ukraine with Western governance standards and international financial institutions. Critics, however, have branded the agencies an element of external control over Ukraine's domestic affairs. At the same time, some Western officials, including US Vice President J.D. Vance, have argued that the decade-long transformation has failed to yield results or weed out entrenched corruption.
Russia Today
10 hours ago
- Russia Today
Ivan Timofeev: We're close to the war nobody wants but everyone's preparing for
US President Donald Trump's recent push for peace in Ukraine highlights a troubling reality: the options for resolving the conflict are narrowing. Kiev continues to rely on NATO military support, while member states are ramping up defense spending and bolstering their arms industries. The Ukraine war may yet spark a broader confrontation between Russia and NATO. For now, the chances remain low – thanks, in large part, to nuclear deterrence. But how strong is that deterrent today? It's difficult to gauge the role of nuclear weapons in modern warfare. Their only combat use – the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945 – occurred under vastly different political and technological conditions. Nonetheless, most international relations experts agree that nuclear weapons serve as powerful deterrents. Even a small nuclear arsenal is seen as a shield against invasion: the cost of aggression becomes unthinkable. By this logic, Russia, as a nuclear superpower, should be nearly immune to external military threats. The use of nuclear weapons has become a political and moral taboo – though military planners still quietly game out scenarios. The dominant belief holds that nuclear weapons are unusable – and that no rational actor would challenge a nuclear-armed state. But is that belief grounded in reality? For Russia, this is becoming an increasingly urgent question as the risk of direct confrontation with NATO – or individual NATO members – grows, especially in the context of Ukraine. There are political flashpoints aplenty. Both Russia and NATO have made their grievances known. Whether these tensions erupt into conflict will depend not just on intent, but on military-industrial capacity and force readiness. And these are changing fast. Russia has expanded defense production since 2022. NATO countries, too, are rearming – and their collective industrial base may soon surpass Russia's conventional strength. With that shift could come a more assertive posture – military pressure backed by material power. Several pathways could lead to a NATO–Russia war. One scenario involves direct NATO intervention in Ukraine. Another could stem from a crisis in the Baltics or elsewhere along NATO's eastern flank. Such crises can escalate rapidly. Drone strikes, missile attacks, and cross-border incursions are now routine. In time, NATO regulars – not just volunteers – could be drawn in. Could nuclear deterrence stop that? At first glance, yes. In a direct clash, Russia would likely begin with conventional strikes. But the war in Ukraine has shown that conventional weapons, even when effective, rarely force capitulation. NATO possesses Ukraine's defensive tools – but at greater scale. Its societies are less prepared to endure casualties, but that could change with sufficient political mobilization and media messaging. Russia has amassed significant military experience – especially in defensive operations – but NATO remains a formidable opponent. If Russia ever considered using nuclear weapons, two broad scenarios exist. The first is a preemptive tactical strike on enemy troop concentrations or infrastructure. The second is a retaliatory strike following NATO escalation. The first is politically perilous: it would frame Russia as the aggressor and trigger diplomatic isolation. The second also violates the nuclear taboo but might be seen differently in global opinion. Either way, NATO can retaliate – with conventional or nuclear force. A Russian strike could provoke a devastating counterattack. Moscow would then face a grim choice: fight on conventionally and risk defeat, escalate with more nukes, or unleash strategic weapons – inviting mutual destruction. The belief that Russia would never go nuclear – fearing retaliation – has created a false sense of security among some NATO leaders. That illusion could tempt escalation by conventional means, starting in Ukraine and spreading beyond. It would require NATO to abandon its Cold War caution. Who would suffer most in such a scenario? Ukraine – which would bear the brunt of intensified fighting. Russia – which could face missile barrages and a possible ground invasion. The Eastern NATO states – potential targets of Russian retaliation, or even invasion. The United States might escape the initial consequences, unless strategic nukes are deployed. But escalation is rarely predictable. If tactical exchanges spiral, even the US could be drawn into a nuclear conflict. There are no winners in nuclear war. Only survivors – if that. Betting that the other side will blink is a dangerous gamble with civilization at stake. Both Russia and NATO understand the catastrophic costs of war. Any large-scale conflict would require massive social and economic shifts and would devastate Europe on a scale not seen since World War II. But history shows that fear alone doesn't always prevent disaster. We cannot rule out a return to extremes. Nuclear weapons still function as a deterrent. But the taboo against their use – and their ability to guarantee peace – is being tested once again. The more leaders gamble with assumptions, the closer we come to finding out whether the old rules still hold.
