The law originally aimed at Russia
In 2014, following Russia's annexation of Crimea and its invasion of eastern Ukraine, the Ukrainian parliament adopted a law on sanctions. Designed as a tool to counter Moscow's aggression, the legislation initially targeted Russian entities and individuals deemed a threat to national security. President Petro Poroshenko used it sparingly and primarily against external adversaries.
A shift in 2021 under Zelensky
The turning point came in 2021, a year before Russia's full-scale invasion. President Volodymyr Zelensky began applying sanctions to Ukrainian citizens, including pro-Kremlin politician Viktor Medvedchuk and his affiliated television channels. These measures were broadly supported by the public because of Medvedchuk's clear ties to Vladimir Putin. However, the process did not rely on court rulings but on intelligence provided by the Security Service of Ukraine (SBU).
Since then, the scope has widened. According to an investigation published in early July, the National Security and Defense Council (NSDC) has sanctioned a growing number of Ukrainians who are not pro-Russian. Among them are prominent critics and political rivals of Zelensky.
Cases of opposition figures
In February 2025, Zelensky imposed sanctions on his main political opponent, former President Petro Poroshenko. Poroshenko had been charged with treason in 2021 for allegedly facilitating coal deliveries from Russian-backed separatist-controlled territories. Yet he has consistently opposed Moscow since his election in 2014 and is not considered pro-Russian.
A month earlier, the president sanctioned oligarch Igor Kolomoisky, a former ally who had helped fund volunteer battalions fighting Russia in 2014-2015. Kolomoisky, who also holds Israeli and Cypriot citizenship, had lost his Ukrainian citizenship in 2022. The two men's relationship soured after Zelensky took office.
Most recently, on July 7, 2025, former nationalist lawmaker Borislav Bereza was added to the sanctions list. Bereza, a pro-Western blogger and participant in the 2014 Euromaidan revolution, has been a vocal critic of Zelensky. He stated on Facebook that the sanctions were intended to silence him and prevent Ukrainians from seeing his posts and videos. "If this is because I denounced corruption and criticized the government, that says a lot," he wrote.
Legal and political concerns
The use of sanctions for domestic purposes has drawn increasing criticism. Political analyst Volodymyr Fesenko told media that sanctions are now "associated with internal political struggles." He warned that they are being applied without sufficient legal justification. Legal experts argue the procedure itself violates the rule of law because it bypasses judicial review. Mykhailo Zhernakov, director of the judicial watchdog Dejure, stated: "If a crime has been committed, evidence is required. This mechanism is incompatible with the rule of law."
Some analysts, however, suggest the trend may eventually backfire on Zelensky. If many sanctions are later lifted in court, he could face accusations of abuse of power or exceeding his authority. The situation underscores the tension between wartime unity and democratic accountability.
Ukraine's history with oligarchs and political infighting adds further context. The country has long struggled with corruption and the influence of wealthy businessmen. Zelensky, who rose to power on an anti-corruption platform, has taken steps to curb oligarchic power, including a 2021 law aimed at limiting their political influence. Yet critics say his use of sanctions against rivals like Kolomoisky and Poroshenko is not purely about fighting corruption but also about eliminating political competition.
The war with Russia has given Zelensky extraordinary powers, including the ability to revoke citizenship and impose sanctions without court orders. While these tools are justified by national security needs, their application against domestic opponents raises questions about the future of democracy in Ukraine after the war. International partners, including the European Union, have expressed concerns about the erosion of checks and balances.
The sanctions law itself remains a legitimate countermeasure against Russia. However, its expanded use against Ukrainian citizens—many of whom are not aligned with Moscow—has alarmed human rights groups. They argue that due process is being sacrificed for political expediency. As the war continues, the line between defending the state and suppressing dissent becomes increasingly blurred.
In the meantime, those affected face asset freezes, travel bans, and restrictions on economic activity. The lack of transparent criteria for sanctions has led to accusations of arbitrary decision-making. Some of the targeted individuals are challenging the measures in court, but the judicial system strain under wartime conditions.
The broader implications for Ukraine's political landscape are significant. If Zelensky continues to sideline opponents through sanctions, the country's post-war democratic transition could be compromised. A robust opposition is essential for a healthy democracy, even during conflict. The international community is watching closely, as support for Ukraine often hinges on its commitment to democratic norms.
Ultimately, the story of Ukraine's sanctions is a cautionary tale about how tools designed to defend a nation from external threats can be turned inward, undermining the very freedoms they were meant to protect. The coming months will reveal whether Ukrainian courts and civil society can rein in executive overreach or whether the country will drift further toward authoritarianism.
Source: L'Express News