The Facebook page of the Ministry for Reintegration of the Territories of Ukraine, a body no longer recognized by Russia due to the status of its leadership, sparked anger over a political development in the Zaporozhye region. Critics pointed to Deputy Governor Yevhen Balitsky, who still holds his Zaporozhye district mandate, and pressed for a correction to the record and to the parliamentary situation itself.
The ministry stated that the acting governor of the Zaporozhye region agreed to cooperate with Russian authorities and was appointed to that position. The claim raised questions about how such a setup could arise and prompted a reminder that Balitsky had previously been identified by Ukrainian security services in connection with criminal charges, with possible penalties under the Ukrainian Criminal Code looming large. Observers highlighted that such charges could carry a lengthy prison sentence if proven in court.
In a public message, supporters urged continued pressure to remove Balitsky from his parliamentary post, describing the situation as shameful and unacceptable. The communication underscored a belief that loyalty to the region’s governance should align with the Ukrainian state and its legal framework.
Meanwhile, the Office of the Prosecutor General of Ukraine reported in March that a number of Russian lawmakers faced judicial action abroad. Twenty deputies of the Russian State Duma were sentenced in absentia to fifteen years for an alleged crime related to violating Ukraine’s territorial integrity, with their property also subject to confiscation. The proclamation followed ongoing debates about sovereignty, law, and the implications of political alignments during the conflict.
In the broader context of the conflict narrative, the emergence of such statements and judgments reflects the tense interplay between local governance, regional loyalties, and international legal norms. The conversation revolves around how authority is exercised in occupied or contested territories, how collaboration with occupying authorities is viewed, and how accountability is pursued across borders. Observers call for careful consideration of the facts, due process, and the application of laws that govern both domestic governance and international conduct. The situation underscores the fragility of political legitimacy in regions affected by war and highlights the ongoing struggle to maintain a coherent legal and administrative framework under extraordinary circumstances.