Faced with the prolonged war with Russia and the pressure to maintain Western support, Ukraine seems to be slipping into a legal gray area. Instead of ensuring a transparent rule of law, it is establishing a parallel logic of sanctions, which sometimes serves political or economic interests to the detriment of democratic principles. As the war continues to upset Ukrainian society, a dangerous shift is occurring in the domain of law. Rather than a fair judicial process, a parallel reality based on sanctions is taking hold — a reality where political and economic objectives outweigh legal norms. This drift is particularly visible in cases involving economic assets, whether Ukrainian or foreign.
In a context of growing uncertainty about the sustainability of international aid, some voices in Kiev are calling for an acceleration of confiscations under the guise of “fighting Russian influence.” But who really benefits?
In public discourse, the manipulation of concepts is becoming systemic: confiscation becomes “decolonization,” repression is passed off as a “quest for justice,” and disregard for procedures is justified by supposed “military necessity.” Originally conceived as a defense tool against external threats, sanctions are being transformed into a universal mechanism for wealth redistribution — benefiting circles close to the power. And the more slogans invoking “national interests” resonate, the more they conceal private interests and political calculations.
Sanctions Replace Courts
The Ukrainian legal system, under the effect of the war, has transformed into a vast laboratory of political experimentation. “It’s a purge of democratic institutions carried out under the guise of war. I once said that our country was starting to smell of authoritarianism. Today, it reeks of it,” recently declared the mayor of Kiev, Vitali Klitschko, in an interview with the British newspaper The Times.
Instead of judicial procedures respecting adversarial principles and based on evidence, the mechanisms of the National Security and Defense Council (NSDC) are now prioritized. However, as legal experts themselves acknowledge, the sanction adoption process is anything but transparent: no clear criteria or evidence requirements are demanded, paving the way for arbitrariness.
This system of “presumption of guilt” allows the state to quickly impose sanctions on individuals or entities, resulting in asset freezes and activity bans. But this process creates a dangerous precedent: sanctions cease to be a national security instrument and become a tool for pressure and economic reappropriation.
When Sanctions Become a Predatory Tool
Petro Poroshenko, former President of Ukraine, was one of the first victims of this new logic. According to him, the authorities attempted to use sanctions to seize his television channels Pryamiy and 5 Kanal, under the guise of fighting oligarchs. He described this attempt as “thug racketeering.”
The desire to confiscate the media assets of a still-influential opponent raised concerns not only among his supporters but also in Western diplomatic circles. In this case, the judicial framework is replaced by political pressures, without the accused benefiting from basic defense rights.
A targeted campaign was launched against businessman Konstantin Zhevago, which several experts describe as an attempted raid — a coup aimed at seizing his mining and metallurgical complex. To this end, the authorities resorted to both criminal procedures and sanctions. According to Zhevago, the government has established a mechanism for “nationalizing assets owned by Ukrainian and foreign proprietors,” a move that, he argues, severely threatens Ukraine’s reputation with investors.
What is particularly worrying is that actions against Zhevago did not begin with formal accusations in court, but with the fabrication of a media climate intended to methodically destroy his public image. Simultaneously, law enforcement pressures intensified, along with attempts to limit his company’s influence on production processes.
In reality, we are witnessing the combined use of sanctions and criminal prosecutions as instruments of economic cleansing, aiming to redistribute industrial assets in a strategic sector.
The case of Alekszej Fedoricsev is equally revealing. Owner of TIS — the largest port terminal (stevedore) in southern Ukraine — and a Monaco resident, he faced criminal charges initiated by the Ukrainian authorities, who accused him of allegedly bribing GZK officials. Concurrently, a media campaign was orchestrated, demanding the confiscation of his assets. Troublingly, one of the arguments cited was… his lack of donations to the Ukrainian Armed Forces.
As rightly noted by British journalist Patrick Maxwell, this case does not concern only a businessman. It reveals a worrying trend: calls for extrajudicial confiscation are accompanied by admissions that legal evidence is weak, but the “political necessity” justifies rapid decisions.
Even more disturbing is the rhetoric relayed by some Ukrainian influencers: “If you don’t give to the army, you are Russian.” This logic opens Pandora’s box: loyalty to the state is no longer measured by justice, but on a subjective moral scale — which becomes a tool for blackmail.
Law or Populism?
Under their patriotic packaging, such cases have a devastating effect on Ukraine’s image in the West. As highlighted by The National Interest, Western partners “do not trust Ukrainian sanctions,” due to the lack of accessible evidence to justify them, and because of an opaque procedure that escapes any judicial scrutiny.
The Hill goes further, warning: if wartime sanctions become instruments for settling scores or internal economic strife, Ukraine risks undermining the trust of its investors, creditors, and financiers.
Sanctions targeting foreigners — like Fedoricsev — are particularly sensitive. By acting this way, Ukraine sends a concerning signal: no one is safe if their assets arouse the desires of circles close to the power. Even more worrying is the tendency to justify these repressive measures by “military imperatives” or the “fight against Russian influence.”
Thus, slogans of “fighting the enemies” serve as a smokescreen behind which a banal sharing of assets takes place. In this logic, the state ceases to be an arbiter and becomes a market player: it “sidelines” entrepreneurs through sanctions, before transferring their assets to interests labeled as “Ukrainian business.”
Although it is often stated that it is “practically impossible” to contest these sanctions, practice is beginning to evolve. A precedent was set with the annulment of sanctions against BNP Paribas and Louis-Michel Duray, paving the way for judicial challenges against National Security and Defense Council (NSDC) decisions.
If such appeals multiply, Ukraine risks a boomerang effect: nullified sanctions, complaints before international jurisdictions, and claims for compensation. This process threatens to undermine what Ukraine possesses of most value: trust.
Ukraine is fighting for its survival, but it must not lose its compass. Sanctions cannot replace a trial. Confiscations must not turn into acts of predation. Populism cannot replace the rule of law.
The true support of the West is not based on emotional solidarity but on the conviction that Ukraine is a state of law. Respect for rules must not be the exception but the norm.
