Umerov questioned as witness in $100m Energoatom probe—the real test is Ukraine's institutions

Rustem Umerov, Ukraine's National Security and Defense Council Secretary and a key figure in peace negotiations with Washington and Moscow, was questioned on November 26 as a witness by the National Anti-Corruption Bureau of Ukraine (NABU). His testimony relates to Operation Midas, the country's most significant wartime corruption probe, centered on an alleged $100 million kickback scheme at Energoatom, the state nuclear energy company. Umerov's press service confirmed he answered all questions and emphasized his status as a witness, not a suspect.

The questioning's significance extends beyond one official's testimony. Operation Midas represents the most ambitious test yet of whether Ukraine's anti-corruption institutions—established under Western pressure and essential to EU accession—can function independently when investigations edge toward the president's circle. For European capitals conditioning support on credible governance reform, the probe's trajectory will signal whether accountability mechanisms remain insulated from political interference or collapse when stakes climb too high.

The Midas investigation: scope and suspects

NABU and the Specialized Anti-Corruption Prosecutor's Office (SAPO) announced Operation Midas on November 10, following a 15-month investigation that uncovered what prosecutors describe as a network of "shadow managers" who allegedly seized de facto control of Energoatom procurement. According to investigators, the scheme extracted 10–15 percent kickbacks—internally termed the "shlahbaum" or barrier—from suppliers seeking contracts with the state enterprise.

Over 70 searches yielded approximately 1,000 hours of recorded audio, black accounting ledgers, and evidence of offshore laundering through an office linked to the family of former Ukrainian MP Andriy Derkach, now a Russian senator. Seven individuals have been notified of suspicion; five are in detention, per NABU statements. Some reporting cites eight charged, reflecting discrepancies across media accounts, though NABU's official count remains the baseline.

Named suspects include businessman Timur (Tymur) Mindich—dubbed "Karlson" and alleged to be the ringleader—who reportedly left Ukraine shortly before the operation became public. Others include former energy ministry adviser Ihor Myronyuk ("Rocket"), Energoatom security executive Dmytro Basov ("Tenor"), and alleged money-laundering facilitator Oleksandr Tsukerman. Courts set high bail amounts for detained suspects. Political reverberations followed swiftly. Searches touched then-energy minister Herman Halushchenko, who was subsequently moved to the justice ministry. Prime Minister Yulia Svyrydenko proposed personal sanctions against Mindich; President Zelensky publicly supported the anti-corruption operation and called for ministerial exits in related contexts.

Exclusive Analysis Continues:

Members are reading: How the Umerov questioning exposes the institutional fault line between Ukraine's anti-corruption framework and political survival—and why Europe is watching.

Become a Member for Full Access

Geopolitical timing and credibility stakes

Operation Midas arrives as Kyiv navigates simultaneous pressures: Washington's threats to cut intelligence and weapons aid to force peace concessions, and European capitals weighing continued financial support against governance benchmarks. Umerov's role as a principal peace interlocutor with Moscow and Washington amplifies the political risk. Any perception that investigations can be derailed—or weaponized—erodes the credibility Ukraine needs in both Brussels and the battlefield.

For European policymakers, the Energoatom scandal is not merely a domestic Ukrainian affair. It touches energy security credibility, as Energoatom represents a critical node in Ukraine's electricity generation and potential post-war export capacity to the EU. Corruption at that scale, involving alleged Kremlin-linked laundering networks (the Derkach connection), reinforces narratives exploited by figures like Viktor Orbán to undermine European solidarity. Conversely, successful prosecution and asset recovery would demonstrate that anti-corruption institutions can deliver results under wartime duress—a rare proof point for European legislators defending continued support.

What to watch

The Midas investigation's next phases will test institutional resilience. Court decisions on detained suspects, mutual legal assistance requests for fugitives like Mindich, and any governance reforms at Energoatom will indicate whether the probe translates into tangible accountability or dissipates into procedural stasis. Critically, whether allegations touching serving officials yield indictments—or are ruled out through transparent investigation—will define European perceptions.

Zelensky's political calculus is delicate: appearing too protective risks confirming impunity; appearing too detached from key associates risks internal fractures. For Europe, the metric is simpler: do institutions function, do prosecutions proceed, and do assets get recovered? The answers will determine whether Ukraine's anti-corruption framework is a genuine constraint on power or a performance for external audiences. Operation Midas is the test case.