Who benefits from the inaction of the Prosecutor General's Office?

Recently, several Ukrainian online publications published analyses of the business and reputational qualities of the main candidates for the position of the Attorney General of Ukraine, as reported by UNN.

Referring to its own sources in the Office of the President and the Office of the Attorney General, the author of the article in "Facts," which was subsequently shared on other platforms, identifies three candidates: the head of the Kyiv Regional Military Administration, Ruslan Kravchenko; his colleague from the Odesa region, Oleg Kiper; and the Deputy Head of the Office of the President, Iryna Mudra.

However, the list of names is not exhaustive—the journalist provides his perspective on their professional and personal strengths and weaknesses.

According to him, the latter are significantly more numerous.

Kravchenko seemingly has not distinguished himself in his role as the head of the Regional Military Administration, while Mudra's "passive" traits include a lack of independence and a penchant for luxury, along with a high-profile scandal involving her partner, Pavlo Polyarush, who allegedly threatened a military officer with a weapon while intoxicated. Kiper is also embroiled in scandals related to vacationing abroad during martial law and corruption schemes in the agricultural export sector in the Odesa region.

From all this, the author concludes that, firstly, the situation necessitates the immediate appointment of a new Attorney General, and secondly, the non-public competition for this position among the mentioned individuals represents a "choice without choice."

As one can easily see, these conclusions contradict each other. Or perhaps there is a hidden orchestrator who is keen to avoid the appointment of any of these three candidates.

Contradictions also arise in the article's arguments.

Kravchenko demonstrated effective management by leading the region to first place in terms of economic stability, according to data from the publication "Business Capital," and he also quite firmly put in place unscrupulous contractors. Such practices would not be unwarranted should he work in the Office of the Attorney General.

Mudra is actively engaging on the international stage, which counters the claim of her "lack of independence."

Oleg Kiper has indeed halted the export of illegal grain in the Odesa region.

Given this context, the criticisms directed at these individuals appear contrived and seem aimed solely at sowing doubt regarding their candidacies.

However, the Office of the President is realistically assessing the situation, making it impossible for such minor "leaks" to influence a serious personnel decision.

Thus, the goal of this informational counter-campaign appears to be something different. It could simply be a desire to buy time, keeping the Attorney General's position vacant for as long as possible, thereby gaining a few more weeks for the full operation of a certain financial "flow."

This may be connected to the gambling industry or customs fraud.

The prosecutor's system, which Ukrainian society expects to be radically cleansed by the new head of the agency, has managed over decades to find numerous avenues for shadow enrichment.

Perhaps it is mere coincidence, but former Deputy Attorney General Dmytro Verbytsky, whose investigation led to the resignation of Andrii Kostin, has significantly intensified his presence in the information sphere.

Moreover, he positions himself not only as a fighter against the gambling business but also as almost a personal enemy of oligarch Ihor Kolomoisky.

From all these rather dubious maneuvers, one reasonable conclusion can be drawn—the question of appointing a new Attorney General has indeed become urgent. His primary responsibility in this role, aside from the obvious need to dismantle "schemes" under the prosecutor's "protection," will be to ensure the reform of the entire system to prevent the Office of the Attorney General from being used as a means of personal enrichment.