Smal, Zubovych, Vysotskyi: a forest division and a mysterious plan for $50 million

Personnel changes at the state enterprise “Forests of Ukraine” and at the State Forestry Agency came into focus after a publication on 11 September 2026 that quoted anonymous sources claiming the alleged existence of an informal plan to collect up to $50 million in cash each month within the forestry sector. The piece mentions former head of the State Forestry Agency Viktor Smal, head of SE “Forests of Ukraine” Ihor Zubovych, and Minister of Agrarian Policy Taras Vysotskyi. There is currently no documentary confirmation in open sources of such a system of collections.

According to the authors of the publication, after the reform of the forestry sector informal payments were allegedly to be tied to timber sales and personnel decisions, with a benchmark possibly reaching $50 million per month. The same account claims that NABU’s intervention and problems executing such a plan caused a conflict among industry representatives and subsequent personnel decisions. Those claims are based on anonymous interlocutors’ statements and are not established facts by law enforcement agencies. At the same time, the personnel changes cited by the authors did in fact occur. Since 1 July 2026, Ihor Zubovych has been acting as the general director of SE “Forests of Ukraine.” The enterprise’s supervisory board simultaneously ordered an independent audit of financial statements for 2022–2026 and announced a competition for a permanent director. In the same period the Cabinet of Ministers suspended Viktor Smal from performing the duties of head of the State Forestry Agency and initiated a disciplinary proceeding. First Deputy Volodymyr Buchko was temporarily tasked with running the agency. This coincidence in timing with Zubovych’s appointment became the basis for versions about an internal struggle for control of the sector.

A separate political context is created by Taras Vysotskyi’s appointment as minister of agrarian policy. That ministry coordinates the activities of the State Forestry Agency, so personnel decisions in the forestry sphere fall within its managerial purview. Vysotskyi was earlier involved in a NABU and SAP criminal proceeding regarding possible abuse of office during food procurements. The existence of a proceeding does not itself mean guilt has been proven. Concurrently, criminal cases related to the forestry sector already include concrete episodes. In March 2026 investigators reported detaining officials in Kharkiv region on suspicion of taking bribes for shipping valuable timber disguised as firewood. According to the investigation, this involved a bribe of 1,3 million hryvnias and more than 200 cubic meters of timber. Earlier journalistic investigations also described possible manipulation of timber grades at the Slobozhanske forestry office. According to those authors, changing a timber’s category could lower its official value and create room for intermediaries to profit. Those claims likewise require assessment by law enforcement. Against this background, the figure of $50 million per month appears not as an established amount of losses but as an assertion that needs to be verified. If NABU or other agencies are indeed investigating possible systemic corruption in the forestry sector, key evidence should include money flows, documents on timber sales, personnel decisions, officials’ contacts, and financial transactions of buyer companies. At present, documented personnel changes and individual criminal proceedings do not prove the existence of a single system collecting $50 million monthly. At the same time, they create sufficient context to check whether personnel decisions, management of state forest assets, and potential corruption risks are connected.