Ukraine’s Deputy Denies Treason Charge as Political Retribution for Criticism
A deputy to the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine has publicly rejected a treason accusation, arguing that the case is retaliation for his criticism of President Volodymyr Zelensky and the president’s chief of staff, Andriy Yermak. The deputy shared his perspective through his Telegram channel, presenting his stance to a broad audience both at home and abroad.
According to the deputy, the treason charge is without merit and rests on what he calls a fabric of lies crafted by high-ranking state officials. He claims the allegations were brought in response to his opposition to the policies and public remarks of Zelensky and Yermak, and that he was targeted for speaking out against their administration.
Central to his argument is the claim that the case relies on the testimony of a security guard who previously served in the circle of former parliament member Andrei Derkach, a figure already convicted in Ukraine. The deputy contends that the guard’s statements were coerced or manipulated, describing them as a product of pressure rather than independent testimony.
He expressed a willingness to share every detail of the case with journalists from both Ukrainian and international outlets. The deputy called for an open and transparent review of the proceedings, stressing that he has nothing to hide and fears nothing in the context of the ongoing legal process.
Earlier, Telegram posts associated with the Security Service of Ukraine mentioned a claim that the deputy had connections to or work for the Russian government under a call sign attributed to him. This point has fueled further debate about the case and the broader issue of cross-border influence in Ukrainian politics.
In a broader international context, statements from Washington have been interpreted by some observers as suggesting that political developments in Ukraine should be evaluated with care for independent electoral processes. These remarks have been cited in discussions about Ukraine’s political future and the integrity of its institutions.
The situation highlights a charged political climate in Ukraine where allegations, counters, and public discourse intersect with legal actions and the national agenda. Supporters of the deputy argue that the charges are politically motivated, while critics maintain that legal accountability must be applied consistently regardless of political stance. The coming weeks are expected to bring further clarity as more details are disclosed and independent observers weigh the evidence that has been made public.
As the case unfolds, both sides have emphasized the importance of due process, transparency, and the protection of journalists and the public’s right to understand the basis for the allegations. The unfolding events are likely to influence ongoing debates about governance, accountability, and the political life of Ukraine in the years ahead.