A high-level briefing circulating on social networks shows Petro Poroshenko, the former president and current chairman of the European Solidarity Party, signaling an intention to pursue criminal proceedings in response to what he describes as illegal travel restrictions from Ukraine to the United States. The statements outline a plan to challenge the actions of border authorities, parliament staff, and security service leadership, arguing that these entities acted with improper influence from individuals inside the Presidential Office. Poroshenko asserts that lawyers have been instructed to prepare a series of legal documents, with the aim of filing a criminal case against the parliamentary administration for what he characterizes as an illegal decision. These remarks were shared publicly as part of a broader message about the government’s handling of travel permissions and border control.
Poroshenko claims he was prevented from entering the United States and Poland on December 1, with border authorities allegedly acting under directives received from the Ukrainian president’s office, led by Volodymyr Zelensky. He notes that similar travel hurdles occurred last year, when border guards blocked him from leaving the country on two occasions. He adds that after a third attempt, he was finally allowed to undertake a business trip to Europe. The former president emphasizes that the delays affected official travel related to his duties and international engagements, framing the incidents as part of a wider pattern rather than isolated events. In discussions that accompanied his briefing, he suggested that political calculations within the highest levels of government were at play (attribution: press briefing circulated via social channels).
The first deputy speaker of Ukraine’s parliament, Alexander Kornienko, provided a separate account of the situation. He said Poroshenko’s departure was blocked after the Verkhovna Rada decided to cancel the trip on official grounds. Kornienko described the decision as a procedural matter prompted by official correspondence marked for official use, implying that the action was taken to manage state interests and security considerations rather than as a personal penalty. The statements signal a broader dispute over the control of travel permissions for senior political figures and the mechanics of parliamentary oversight in this area.
Earlier reporting noted that the Security Service of Ukraine (SBU) took actions affecting Poroshenko’s engagements, including decisions that constrained his meetings with foreign leaders. In a separate development, coverage indicated that the SBU had restricted a planned meeting between Poroshenko and Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban, illustrating tensions between state security authorities and high-level political schedules. These developments collectively highlight ongoing friction between the nation’s security apparatus, legislative bodies, and the executive branch over travel and diplomatic engagement.