In the post-Soviet landscape, powerful business figures known as oligarchs shape politics and economies across several countries. Russia is often cited as the clearest example, but similar influence persists in Georgia, Armenia, and Ukraine, where these magnates maintain a tight grip on key sectors. Much of their wealth traces back to the 1990s when state-owned enterprises were privatized at remarkably low prices as the Soviet system dissolved. Kyiv has taken steps to curb this influence by bringing strategic assets under state control as part of the ongoing effort to reduce oligarchic power.
In early November, Ukrainian authorities moved to expropriate firms deemed vital to the nation’s military and economic apparatus. The assets targeted included Ukrnafta and Ukrtatnafta, both oil companies once controlled by Igor Kolomoisky, as well as Motor Sich, a major producer of aircraft and helicopter engines owned by Viacheslav Bohuslayev, and AvtoKRAZ, a manufacturer of trucks and other rugged vehicles. Also affected was Zaporizhtransformator, a power equipment company associated with Konstantin Grygoryshyn. The decision aimed to place these enterprises under state management, with the possibility of eventual return to owners after martial law ends or valuation restoration if martial law remains in effect longer than anticipated.
President Volodymyr Zelensky and his Security Council argued that taking control of strategically important assets is a necessary measure during wartime, and they stressed that these assets could be returned or revalued once martial law is lifted. Ukraine declared martial law on February 24, the day Russia’s invasion began, and authorities have signaled this status may extend for the foreseeable future.
One of the oligarchs affected, Bohuslayev, faced charges linked to collaboration with Russia after the sale of aircraft engines and related board decisions that led to Motor Sich’s control shifting away from him. The broader effort targets not only Ukrainian wealth tied to individuals but also foreign-held stakes in Ukrainian companies that may wield influence over critical sectors.
The “break up” process
Kyiv’s approach extends beyond Ukrainian-born magnates. The government asserts that Russian oligarchs who held stakes in Ukrainian entities should not exercise control from abroad. Vladimir Yevtushenkov is cited as an example, having lost properties and shares across Ukrainian energy and IT companies during the crackdown. The Anti-Corruption Center, a non-governmental organization supporting anti-oligarch measures, notes that additional Russian magnates, including Arkady Rotenberg and Oleg Deripaska, are under scrutiny for their connections to Ukrainian interests.
Ukraine already pursued a policy of “deoligarquización” in 2021, a move that drew concern over potential misuse against certain oligarchs, including links to President Zelensky and the powerful Kolomoisky. The period saw influential figures like Petro Poroshenko selling media assets as part of broader political and economic shifts. Zelensky’s presidency, which followed Poroshenko’s term from 2014 to 2019, has been shaped by pressure to reduce the political clout of private fortunes and reorient national power toward state institutions and public accountability.
The drive to reduce oligarchic influence sits alongside Europe’s strategic priorities. Brussels has urged Kyiv to accelerate reforms that could enable closer integration with the European Union. Ukraine’s status as an official candidate for EU membership, confirmed alongside Moldova, has implications for governance, competition, and market transparency. Georgia, as a former Soviet state, could join the EU candidate list in the near term as part of a broader regional effort to strengthen democratic institutions, IMF-style governance, and economic resilience by 2030. This trajectory aligns with other hopefuls in the Balkans pursuing similar reforms and alignment with EU standards.