Publishing out of power between the most influential Ukraine agents. Moscow is the only one that wins from rivalry

The Security Service of Ukraine (SBU) and the National Anti-Corruption Bureau (NABU), two key institutions in the country invaded by Vladimir Putin, are in a more intense conflict, marked by searches, arrests and mutual accusations, writes the main Ukrainian publication The Kyiv Independent.

The dispute is seen as part of a wider fight between the Presidential Administration of Volodimir Zelenski and Nabu, who accuses the authorities of trying to undermine their independence.

SBU, perceived as loyal to the president's office, arrested Nabu employees, accusing them of connections with Russia. The officials of the Security Service claim that the action would have been meant to combat the influence of Moscow on the institution struggling with the scourge of corruption.

However, anti -corruption activists see another reality: an attempt to intimidate investigators who have investigated close to President Zelenski.

What began that a series of descendants turned into a war of wear between the two powerful agencies, each now investigating people from the opposing camp.

In discussions with The Kyiv Independent, officials from both institutions defended their positions, but admitted that the only beneficiary of the SBU and Nabu scandal is Russia. In particular, some officials admit that the president's office also has the interest that tensions will continue.

Controversial law promulgated by Zelenski

Public protests and pressures from Brussels have blocked Nabu subordination in the summer, but few believe that the Presidential Bureau's plan has been permanently abandoned.

The conflict began in July, after Zelenski signed a law eliminated the independence of anti -corruption prosecutors.

The decision of the Kiev leader to promulgate the law that subordinates to the Attorney General appointed by the president in time of war two independent anti -corruption bodies triggered protests in the country, critics abroad and generated a shock even in the president's team.

Zelenski then claimed that the anti -corruption institutions in Ukraine. they must be cleaned of “Russian influence”. After the first major protests during the war, Zelenski gave back, but the confrontation between the two agencies continued.

The day before the law was promulgated, SBU searched the Nabu headquarters and retained Ruslan Mahammadrasulov, the head of an investigation unit, together with his father, accusing them of “complicity with the aggressor state”, that is, Russia.

The central point of the conflict between SBU and Nabu

The case of Mahammedrasulov has become the central point of the conflict between the two institutions. Critics say he was targeted because he had investigated Zelenski's close friends. SBU officials rejected this accusation.

Sources from Nabu claim that Mahammedrasulov played a minor role in a investigation into Timur Mindici's business, a film producer, Zelenski's business partner and co-founder of the Kvartal 95 production company.

SBU claims that Mahammaddrasulov and his father would have contacts with Russia and would have planned to intermediate cannabis sales to the Russian Republic of Daghestan.

But the audio recording underlying the case is of poor quality, and the defenders say that the Uzbekistan appears, not Daghestan.

The Center for Anti -Corruption Action, which provides legal assistance to Mahammadrasulov, accuses SBU of serious procedural violations and even torture. A witness states that he was threatened by the Security Service. The General Prosecutor's Office and SBU deny all the charges.

The curious case of a pro-Russ fugar parliamentarian

An opposition parliamentarian, Iaroslav Jelezniak, claims that the evidence has been forged, while Daria Kaleniuk, the director of the Center for Anti-Corruption, states that the file is “a personal revenge against an investigator who did his job and dared to touch the friends of the president.” The purpose, she says, would be “intimidating Nabu through a show process.”

In July, SBU also detained another investigator Nabu, Vitali Husarov, accused of betrayal. Since then, both agencies have launched investigations against each other: Nabu on the defendant on the former head of the SBU Cyber ​​Security Department, Illia Vitiuk, for illicit enrichment, and SBU has replied accusing an investigator Nabu, Vitali Tebekin, of false statements of wealth.

The conflict culminated with a spectacular case: the return and arrest of the fugitive deputy pro-Russian Fedir Hrîștenko, accused of betrayal.

The circumstances of his return from Dubai remain unclear. Sources from justice quoted by The Kyiv Independent that the deputy chief of SBU, Oleksandr Poklad, would have secretly negotiated his bringing to Ukraine, with the approval of the president's office.

Although officially the General Prosecutor's Office claims that Hrîștenko has returned “willingly”, the Ukrainian press reports that he would testify in several cases that even aimed at Nabu employees.

Moscow, the only one to win because of the scandal

Meanwhile, accusations of Russian infiltration also plan on SBU. General Serhii Duka, one of those who coordinate operations against Nabu, is accused of having relatives with Russian passports. The Security Service rejects the accusations and claims that Duka informed the institution about the situation of his family.

For activists and parliamentarians, all these actions are an attempt at the political power to neutralize the independence of the anti -corruption institutions.

Behind closed doors, however, both agencies admit that the dispute does not use anyone except Russia. Officials on both sides, quote anonymously, blame the Presidential Administration for conflict escalation.