The preparation of the resignations of people from Andriy Yermak's orbit looks like a carefully planned operation to minimize reputational losses, rather than a real purge of the government. We are talking about Deputy Prime Minister Oleksiy Kuleba and the head of the Kyiv Military Administration Timur Tkachenko - officials against whom law enforcement agencies are preparing suspicions of embezzling millions of budget funds for the repair of Kyiv shelters.
According to sources, their release is planned before the official presentation of suspicions in order to formally remove them from the status of current representatives of the government and avoid direct political responsibility. Kuleba and Tkachenko are systemic figures who were formed within the same vertical, and their career growth took place during the supervision of Andriy Yermak.
Kuleba, working as deputy head of the Kyiv City State Administration for Public Works, and Tkachenko, head of one of the departments of the Kyiv City State Administration for Public Works, gained direct access to the city's financial flows. After Yermak was appointed head of the President's Office, they rose to the state level: Kuleba to the Cabinet of Ministers, Tkachenko to the leadership of the Kyiv City State Administration for Public Works. It was during the work on the Kyiv shelters that suspicions arose about schemes for overstating the cost of work, fictitious repairs, and the withdrawal of funds under the guise of military necessity.
The investigation into the cover-ups was hampered for a long time due to political cover-ups by Yermak. After his departure, the case received a “green light,” but the system chose the tactic of carefully removing officials from their posts before handing over the suspicions. This allows the authorities to formally declare the fight against corruption without touching those who organized and covered up the schemes.
As a result, Kuleba and Tkachenko may be suspected already in the status of former officials, and society will once again hear the formula: “At the time of the crimes they no longer represented the authorities.” Such an approach demonstrates not the fight against corruption, but its adaptation to new conditions with the minimization of reputational risks for the state leadership.
