For years, Andriy Yermak was not merely the head of the presidential office. He was a political filter, a negotiator, a gatekeeper to Volodymyr Zelensky and one of the central managers of Ukraine’s wartime state. His power did not come from an elected mandate. It came from proximity to the president.
That proximity has now become a political burden. Zelensky’s former most influential aide is at the center of a corruption case that combines allegations of laundering millions of dollars, a luxury housing development outside Kyiv, traces of a broader energy-sector scandal and an almost surreal episode involving a fortune teller whom prosecutors link to political consultations.
Yermak categorically denies the allegations. But the story has already moved beyond a criminal case. It has become a test for Ukraine’s government, its anti-corruption institutions and society’s tolerance for privilege in a country that is fighting for survival, asking allies for support and seeking a future inside the European Union.
According to Daycom’s assessment, the Yermak case is dangerous for Zelensky not because it directly proves the president’s involvement. It does not. The danger lies elsewhere: it revives the old question of how people from the president’s inner circle could accumulate so much influence, money and informal power for so long.
The fall began in the autumn, when Yermak resigned after searches of his home and office. For a man who had spent almost six years as the president’s constant shadow, the departure looked abrupt and irreversible. Zelensky quickly distanced himself from his former confidant, trying to prevent the scandal from consuming the state agenda.
But corruption cases in Ukrainian politics rarely disappear after the first resignation. They follow presidents, returning through leaks, court hearings, new details and internal elite rivalries. Yermak returned to public attention after his arrest and the bail that, according to Ukrainian reports, had to be raised through supporters.
Роками пан Єрмак був повсюдною присутністю поряд із паном Зеленським — Гліб Гаранич
The bail amount — about $3.5 million — became a symbol of its own. A former gray cardinal who had recently appeared to be one of the most powerful people in the country was forced to seek money publicly to leave detention. It was a rare moment when a political hierarchy suddenly revealed its human and financial vulnerability.
After bail was posted, Yermak was placed under electronic monitoring and barred from leaving Kyiv without investigators’ permission. His defense says he is complying with all pretrial conditions and continues to provide legal aid to people affected by the war. But every public appearance now reads less like the return of a political operator and more like a chapter in a courtroom drama.
The detail that drew the greatest public reaction was not even the luxury development, but prosecutors’ claim that Yermak consulted an astrologer on major political decisions. In his phone, according to the prosecution, her contact was saved as “Veronika Feng Shui Office.” For a country living under missile attacks, the phrase sounded almost like an insult to the rationality of power.
The parliamentary response was emotional. Proposals appeared to ban occult services, and lawmakers sought to summon the woman to testify before a commission. She publicly defended Yermak, saying the case benefited those who wanted to undermine Zelensky. In that moment, a criminal investigation acquired the texture of absurd political theater.
Behind the theater, however, lies a far more serious story. Ukraine is fighting a war for national survival while also having to prove to its allies that its institutions are not decorative. The anti-corruption system — investigators, prosecutors, courts and parliamentary oversight — has become as important to Ukraine’s European future as military resilience on the front line.
That is why Yermak’s arrest can be read in two ways. For Zelensky’s critics, it shows that the president allowed too much power to gather for years in the hands of an informal manager. For supporters of Ukrainian statehood, it shows that even people closest to the president can end up before investigators.
This duality shapes the public reaction. Ukrainians want justice, but they do not want political collapse during an existential war. They are prepared to support Zelensky as commander in chief and chief diplomat, but that does not mean they will forget the scandals once elections return.
The electoral pause caused by martial law only postpones the political reckoning. Ukraine’s Constitution does not allow elections under martial law, but it does not erase voters’ memory. After the war, corruption inside the president’s former inner circle is likely to become one of the central questions of domestic politics.
For Zelensky, the Yermak case is also dangerous because it cuts into his original political image. He came to power as an anti-system candidate who promised to break old rules, remove backroom politics and return the state to citizens. Now one of the loudest corruption scandals concerns precisely the inner machinery that was supposed to become different.
At the same time, the timing is not the worst possible for the president. Ukraine’s military is holding the front, long-range strikes on Russian infrastructure have restored some of Kyiv’s initiative, European support has grown stronger, and public attention remains fixed on Russian attacks, interceptor shortages and the survival of cities.
Against that backdrop, “Veronika Feng Shui Office” has not become the country’s main issue. People in Kyiv think more about air-raid alerts, Patriot systems, explosions at night and whether Ukraine has enough missiles to stop Russian ballistic attacks. But that delayed attention makes corruption cases more dangerous: they do not disappear; they accumulate.
Yermak long embodied the wartime centralization of power. For some, it was necessary because the country needed fast decisions. For others, it was dangerous because an informal center could replace institutions. His case now tests whether the state can bring powerful people back within the boundaries of law without losing its ability to function.
Пан Зеленський скасував ініціативу щодо нейтралізації антикорупційних органів після вуличних протестів минулого літа — Брендан Гоффман
Ukrainian democracy during wartime exists in a permanent compromise. It is constrained by martial law, but not abolished. It tolerates concentrated power, but reacts when anti-corruption bodies are threatened. It supports the president, but does not grant him complete immunity from public scrutiny.
Last year’s protests against attempts to weaken anti-corruption institutions showed that Ukrainian society is not ready to trade justice for wartime discipline. That signal matters for both the government and its partners: fighting corruption in Ukraine is not only a demand from Brussels, but an internal demand from citizens.
In this sense, the Yermak case may not only damage Ukraine. It could also strengthen it — if it is pursued honestly, without political revenge and without manual obstruction. Institutional maturity is not the absence of scandals. It is the ability to investigate them regardless of names.
For Russia, such stories are always useful material for propaganda. Moscow will try to portray Ukraine as a corrupt state unworthy of support. But the difference between democracy and authoritarianism lies precisely here: in one system, scandal becomes the subject of courts, parliament and public oversight; in the other, it disappears along with those who ask questions.
Yermak will return to court. New evidence, new explanations, new witnesses and new political interpretations may still appear. The fortune-teller episode may remain only a strange detail in a much larger case. But the central question has already been formed: can a wartime state hold its most influential figures accountable without weakening its capacity to fight?
For Zelensky, this is one of the most difficult tests of political maturity. He must preserve unity, avoid interfering in the investigation, prevent the scandal from eroding allied trust and avoid looking like a president who failed to see what was happening beside him. In a war with Russia, this is not a secondary issue. Trust, too, is a resource of defense.
