The downfall of Andriy Yermak
- Matthew Parish
- 2 minutes ago
- 3 min read
On 28 November 2025 investigators from the National Anti-Corruption Bureau of Ukraine (NABU) and the Specialised Anti-Corruption Prosecutor’s Office (SAPO) conducted court-approved searches — including at the residence and offices of Andriy Yermak, the head of the Presidential Office under Volodymyr Zelenskyy.
Later in the day, the President’s Office announced that Yermak had submitted his resignation.
Yermak — who confirmed the searches and pledged full cooperation with investigators — is stepping down at a moment of acute political crisis, as the probe into irregularities in the energy sector has expanded to envelop the highest echelons of the Ukrainian government.
This dramatic turn of events marks a watershed moment in what has become the most far-reaching corruption scandal since the beginning of Russia’s full-scale invasion: the investigation into alleged kickbacks tied to state energy contracts.
Who is Andriy Yermak
Yermak served as head of the Presidential Office — effectively the chief of staff to President Zelenskyy — and has long been described as one of the most powerful figures in Kyiv, often regarded as the President’s principal aide.
His background is in law and film- and media-production: prior to entering government service, he worked with Zelenskyy’s media ventures.
Since Zelenskyy assumed the presidency, Yermak progressively accrued influence over foreign policy, peace negotiations (especially those involving Russia and international partners), and coordination of the President’s Office with other state institutions and agencies — giving him informal but substantial sway over appointments and state-enterprise oversight.
What is the energy-corruption scandal
The ongoing investigation centres on alleged corruption at the state nuclear-power company Energoatom. According to investigators, a network of contractors and officials allegedly obtained kickbacks amounting to 10–15 per cent of contract values.
The probe is widely regarded as the largest anti-corruption case in wartime Ukraine. Public anger over the scandal has been fuelled by the fact that the energy sector is critical for civilian supply — electricity and heating — especially given Russian attacks on infrastructure.
Previously, the scandal had already cost the positions of senior officials: for example, the last energy minister and justice minister resigned earlier in November, under pressure.
Why Yermak’s involvement (or proximity) matters
Although Yermak has not yet been formally charged, investigators appear to believe there may be a connection between him and the corruption network — or at least that evidence located in premises linked to him could shed light on the broader scheme.
Given his institutional role — effectively the gate-keeper of the President’s Office, with influence over appointments, communications between the Presidency and state-owned companies (such as Energoatom), and coordination of wartime governance — many observers argue that it is difficult to imagine such a large-scale kickback operation functioning without at least his awareness, if not tacit approval.
The fact that investigators nonetheless proceeded to search his home and his offices suggests they believe there is evidence — possibly documentation, communication logs or financial records — that could implicate him directly or help trace the flow of illicit funds.
His resignation therefore removes a key figure from the leadership, signalling a potentially serious shift in how the administration approaches the corruption scandal — whether to insulate political leadership, allow investigations to proceed without interference, or to pre-empt public backlash.
Why it matters — for Ukraine’s domestic politics, war effort and international standing
The resignation of a figure as prominent as Yermak marks a turning point: it shatters the image of impunity around Ukraine’s wartime leadership. That may reassure the public and Ukraine’s Western partners concerned about graft and institutional corruption.
Yet it also raises serious doubts about the integrity of wartime procurement, energy-sector management and governance at the highest levels — at a time when energy supply is crucial for civilian life during winter and as Russia continues to target infrastructure.
Politically, the crisis may weaken presidential influence and internal coherence of the administration. It may embolden critics — both inside Ukraine and abroad — to demand deeper structural reforms.
Diplomatically, with ongoing peace negotiations, this scandal — and especially the involvement of a top negotiator – could be exploited by adversaries to undermine public trust, or used as leverage in external negotiations.