The minister of everything

Despite years in the cabinets of Zelenskyy’s predecessor, Arsen Avakov remained onboard as interior minister and found a place in the new administration. Photo: Oleh Dubyna / Shutterstock

Being one of the most experienced politicians in the cabinet of the newly-elected president, Avakov often commented on matters far removed from his official ministerial tasks.

Despite years in the cabinets of Zelenskyy’s predecessor, Avakov found a place in the new administration. He made his move early on, practically declaring support for then candidate Zelenskyy in the presidential campaign. In practice, Avakov’s support manifested in incidents when police officers detained activists who were distributing leaflets against Zelenskyy, claiming they were printed against election procedures. A few days after Zelenskyy’s inauguration, police detained a 16-year-old, named Daria Kotsiuruba, who was holding protest banners during a rally in Rivne. The teenager explained she was protesting against the appointments of Zelenskyy’s showbiz partners to state offices. Signs of loyalty on the part of Avakov secured his position within the administration of the newly-elected president. Yet Avakov’s charm was effective not only with Ukrainian politicians. When testifying in the US Congress during the impeachment hearings against former President Donald Trump, the former US ambassador to Ukraine, Mary Jovanovich, spoke of Avakov with sympathy, stating that he had warned her about the possible personal danger she faced in Ukraine.

From local elite to the national stage

Avakov was born outside of Ukraine. As the son of a Soviet army officer, he came to Ukraine as a baby. His father was stationed in Chuhuiv, a town in the Kharkiv oblast, in the east of the country. Avakov spent most of his life in Kharkiv and the Kharkiv oblast, graduating from the Kharkiv Polytechnic University. It is believed that Avakov’s business ventures have roots in his student activities. He was a leader of the student construction brigade. The Soviet practice of these brigades organised students to work on construction sites throughout the USSR, and even in the countries of the Soviet bloc during the summer. In the later Soviet period the student brigades functioned as semi-commercial service providers, and the students were paid significant sums for their work. Many leaders of the brigades went on to establish official businesses after the collapse of the Soviet Union.

The business of the Avakov family was a private company called Investor, and a bank called Basis bank. Investor started in 1990 as a trading company but soon expanded to retail, energy, gas extraction and media. Like many businessmen in post-Soviet Ukraine, Avakov turned to politics. He became a member of the Kharkiv city council in 2002 as a partner with the future mayor of Kharkiv, Gennadiy Kernes. Their common business was the local TV company Tonis which operated the “7 Channel” TV. In 2004 Avakov supported Viktor Yushchenko who was running for president of Ukraine against Viktor Yanukovych. After the Orange Revolution, Avakov was appointed by Yushchenko as the chairman of the Kharkiv regional state administration. Yushchenko’s nephew, Yaroslav, was appointed as Avakov’s deputy. At some point during the Orange government, a conflict with Kernes took place and the two became enemies.

During the 2010 presidential elections Avakov supported Yulia Tymoshenko who was close to victory, but lost to Yanukovych. Avakov’s political sympathies led to Viktor Yushchenko’s decision to remove him from the head of the regional state administration in February 2010. Yushchenko hoped to get re-elected and interpreted Avakov’s choices as disloyalty. In 2012 – two years after Yanukovych was elected president and the Party of Regions established its domination in national politics – Avakov fled the country to avoid a criminal case against him. The case was regarded as part of Yanukovych’s crackdown on the opposition. In autumn 2012 he was elected member of parliament which provided him immunity from prosecution during his period in office. As a result, Avakov returned to Ukraine in December that year. After the ousting of Yanukovych during the 2013-2014 Revolution of Dignity, the case against Avakov was closed.

The protector of the East

It was not only his charm but his efficiency which secured Avakov’s success. One of the very few representatives of the Kharkiv regional elite not tied to Yanukovych’s Party of Regions, Avakov was appointed interior minister in 2014 (first as an interim) with an unofficial task of securing Kharkiv and the Kharkiv oblast for Ukraine. The region was one of eight oblasts of Ukraine which Russia wanted to put under its control as part of the “Novorossiya” project. The city of Kharkiv had its share of pro-Russian violence and in the spring of 2014 the building of the Kharkiv regional state administration was seized for a short period and separatists even proclaimed the creation of a “Kharkiv people’s republic”.

Avakov managed to secure support from some of the local elite, and having employed the special police units, was able to regain control of the city. In the process he had to negotiate with his former business partner and bitter rival – Kernes. During his active participation in political life, Kernes changed allegiances several times. Having backed the Orange Revolution in 2004, he later became an active supporter of the Party of Regions. In 2013-2014 Kernes did not support the Maidan protests, and in the beginning of 2014 made statements which could be interpreted as support for separatism. In April 2014, as a result of an assassination attempt, Kernes was gravely injured and required treatment in Israel. The perpetrator was never found. After his return to Ukraine, Kernes started supporting Ukraine’s unity, however remaining in opposition to the current government. In December 2020 Kernes succumbed to COVID-19 which led to a complicated transition process in the Kharkiv local elite.

Another bold move was Avakov’s decision to offer support to the volunteer battalions at the beginning of the war in Donbas in 2014. Since the state army was unable to produce swift action after the initial seizure by Russian paramilitary groups in the town of Slovyansk in the Donetsk oblast of Ukraine, many Ukrainians created volunteer battalions. In summer 2014 the ministry of interior, under Avakov, formed four volunteer battalions as units of the National Guard of Ukraine (In practice he offered the official status and thus took control over self-organised units). Those battalions took part in the most significant battles of the Donbas war, including the operation for the liberation of Mariupol, the battle of Ilovaysk and the battle of Debaltseve.

Patron of the police

Avakov’s policy of covering up police misdeeds has become famous in recent years. After his appointment as minister, Avakov became one of the frontmen of police reform. He invited Georgian politician Khatia Dekanoidze, who was involved with police reform in Georgia, to lead reform in Ukraine. Dekanoidze served as the chief of the national police of Ukraine from November 2015 until November 2016. Her resignation from the post resulted from a slow burning disagreement with Avakov, who imposed a heavy personal control on the reform process.

The reform envisaged a few key elements, including the creation of the new patrol force and the verification process for serving police personnel. The verification of police personnel included tests on basic knowledge of the constitution and laws as well as interviews with officers. The interviewing commission included a number of public activists and journalists who often pointed to discrepancies in levels of spending and officers’ income. They openly stated that the verification process was rushed by the leadership of the ministry of interior so that activists did not have enough time to interview all officers. In some cases officers who failed exams on the basic legal knowledge were able to bypass the verification process. In the view of some activists, it was Avakov who, by letting many officers remain in their position despite insufficient qualifications, has gained the loyalty of the police force.

In early 2020 Ukraine, like many European countries, introduced amendments into the state budget to accommodate unforeseen expenditures related to the COVID-19 pandemic. Planned spending – often in the sphere of culture – was cut to create a special COVID fund. The fund was created to purchase personal protection equipment and other medical supplies; it all amounted to 72 billion Ukrainian hryvnias (over two billion euro) in 2020. Due to Avakov’s lobbying, 2.7 billion hryvnias (80 million euro) of this fund was allocated to the ministry of interior for supplement payment to its officers and staff.

Avakov has also survived cases of police criminal behaviour under his leadership, as well as false accusations. In July 2018 Kateryna Handziuk, an activist and local politician, was attacked with sulphuric acid in Kherson in southern Ukraine. Hanziuk died of injuries resulting from the attack in November of that year. The local police and prosecution tried to sabotage the investigation by accusing a local resident, Mykola Novikov, known for previous criminal convictions. It was Avakov who publicly announced Novikov’s arrest. Journalists and local activists quickly collected evidence of Novikov’s innocence. It was thanks to public pressure and a series of protests which forced a proper investigation into the attack. Eventually the former chairman of Kherson regional council, Vladyslav Manger, was accused of being behind the attack.

In May 2019 a group of drunk off duty police officers started shooting tin cans in a residential neighbourhood of Pereyaslav, a town in the Kyiv oblast. One of the bullets hit a five-year-old boy who was playing outside. The boy died and the local police initially tried to cover up the incident – presenting the death as a result of injuries not related to the shooting. A proper investigation only began after details about the case reached the media. The trial of the three policemen accused of homicide has not been finalised at the time of writing. Yet, not one high ranking officer resigned or was fired as a result of this.

In May 2020 Ukrainians were shocked by the news of the torture and rape of a resident of Kaharlyk (another town in the Kyiv oblast) by a police officer. A woman was summoned to the police station under the pretext of giving a statement as a witness in a case. She was tortured and raped by a police officer, someone who she allegedly refused as a suitor in the past. Soon after the incident, journalists revealed that other cases of torture took place at the same police station and were swept under the rug. Moreover, the police officers who tortured and raped the woman have officially passed the verification process rushed by the ministry. Once again the leadership of the ministry of interior did not take responsibility for the actions of their subordinates.

The murder of Pavel Sheremet

During a December 2019 press conference, Avakov together with then Prosecutor General of Ukraine Ruslan Riaboshapka (appointee of President Volodymyr Zelenskyy) and Zelenskyy, declared the solving of the murder of Belarusian journalist Pavel Sheremet who was killed in Kyiv by an explosive device in 2016. Sheremet, who was exiled from Belarus, had been living in Ukraine for a few years before his murder. He was not the only person to be killed by an explosion in Ukraine after 2014. Details of the murder gave way to suggestions that the killer could have been working for foreign intelligence. In December 2019 the police arrested three Ukrainian citizens and charged them with participation in the conspiracy to kill Sheremet. According to official statements, their motives were based on ultra-nationalistic political views and plans to destabilise the situation in the country. All three suspects were known for their support of the actions of the Ukraine’s army in Donbas: Yulia Kuzmenko was a volunteer doctor, Andriy Antonenko was a former military serviceman and musician who went to the frontline and Yana Duhar, at the time of her arrest, was a serving military medic.

Sheremet’s colleagues, who conducted their own investigation, declared distrust in the statements of the minister of interior. Independent experts declared the evidence in the case to be tampered with and inconclusive. Riaboshapka, who was removed from the post as prosecutor general in March 2020, later stated it was Avakov who invited him to the press conference. He also admitted that the evidence in the case was inconclusive. A formal trial has not yet begun as the investigation has been prolonged. Of the three accused, Duhar was released to house arrest, followed by Kuzmenko. Antonenko was released to house arrest at the end of April this year after more than 500 days in prison. According to many commentators in Ukraine, the release of those sentenced to house arrest is an indicator that the prosecution feels the case will be lost in trial. Like many politicians in Ukraine, Avakov has had dubious moments in his career. Yet his longevity as interior minister, despite the mishandling of a number of high profile cases and clear incidents of political engagement as minister, is the best illustration of the current state of Ukraine’s politics.

Kateryna Pryshchepa is a Ukrainian journalist and a frequent contributor to New Eastern Europe.

Arsen Avakov, corruption, reforms, Ukraine