Pro-Russian deputies in local councils. Why does the Verkhovna Rada protect the 'local warlords'?'

Last week's action-packed plenary week, the Verkhovna Rada adopted at first reading a bill 14405, which is to preserve the operability of local councils under martial law. Its essence in brief: a local council can continue to work and adopt decisions even if only one third of deputies from its composition are present.

Before the vote in the parliament, this bill 10 received approval from the Committee on State Power, Local Self-Government, Regional Development and Urban Planning in September. However, at the same meeting, committee members reviewed and approved another bill – 13618.

This bill amends the Electoral Code and other acts regarding the procedure for appealing a recall of local council deputies and filling their seats with the next person on the list. Its authors are deputies from several factions ("Fatherland", "Servant of the People", "European Solidarity").

Currently, it often happens that a local council deputy recalled by their party petitions the decision to court, and the case can drag on for years. Accordingly, all this time the party cannot appoint another candidate in place of the 'defectors.' The bill, among other things, proposes an amendment to the Code of Administrative Procedure that limits the term of consideration for such cases 15 days. It also speeds up actions by the territorial election commission to register the next deputy, and in case of its inaction these duties are transferred to the Central Election Commission.

Bill 13618 was adopted at first reading over a year ago, but again the hands of the profile committee only reached it now. However, as members of the profile committee claim, bringing 13618 to the floor is currently blocked. And not only due to accusations of even greater party 'bonding' of deputies. During the second reading, an amendment slipped into the bill that threatens the further passage of all decisions in the Verkhovna Rada…

Esteemed partners

Bill 13618 "stumbled" over an amendment proposed by Mykola Lazo, a member of parliament from Holos. The MP suggested adding a provision depriving of mandates all deputies of local councils elected from parties prohibited in 2022 year (OPZZh, Opposition Bloc, Party Shariy, 'Our', etc.). His colleagues on the committee supported it at the meeting.

At the same time, Lozinsky noted that a bill with such a clause (No. 7476) had already been submitted to the Verkhovna Rada in 2022 year, and its initiator was... the government. The profile committee even supported this initiative, but further promotion of the project was blocked. According to Lozinsky, behind this stood 'pro-Russian agentura in the parliament'.

Here is a small remark: after banning OPZZh and the extinction of the faction of the same name in parliament, its representatives who did not flee the country split into two roughly equal groups – 'Platform for Life and Peace' and 'Ukraine—Restoration'. Despite repeated calls to deprive them of mandates, this is not easy: grounds for depriving MPs of authority are clearly laid down in the Constitution.

The head of the ruling faction, Davyd Arakhamiya, repeatedly went to meet the 'fragments' of OPZZh (in the photo at the center standing next to the head of the parliamentary group 'Platform for Life and Peace' Yuriy Boyko)

photo: unian.ua

In some MPs' cases, mandates were revoked through citizenship deprivation tools (Viktor Medvedchuk, Taras Kozak, Renat Kuzmin); some submitted applications themselves (Nataliya Korolevska, Yuriy Solod, Oleh Voloshin, Yuliya Lvochkina). But most former 'OPZZh' members remain in the Rada and cling to their groups, to which isolated non-faction deputies joined, elected in eastern regions, and the 'sluga narodu' tainted ones. There are also several majoritarian MPs elected from the banned Opoblok who stay non-faction.

One of the former leaders of OPZZh – Viktor Medvedchuk – was exchanged for Ukrainian defenders captured and periodically makes anti-Ukrainian statements from Moscow.

photo: ssu.gov.ua

In total, together in the groups 'Platform for Life and Peace' and 'Ukraine—Restoration' there are 38 deputies. For comparison: in the largest faction after Servants of the People, 'European Solidarity' has 26 big decoys. Obviously, former representatives of banned parties are, to say the least, not enthusiastic about the potential deprivation of local colleagues' mandates.

It would seem that 38 votes would not make a difference if the Rada has supporters of cleansing the political field at least locally from remnants of pro-Russian forces. Nevertheless, the leadership of the majority, which shapes the agenda in the Rada, looks at the situation more globally.

It is no secret that parliamentary groups composed of ex-Opposition Platform MPs are effectively satellites of 'Servants of the People' on important and often unpopular votes. The majority currently consists only of 228 deputies, while parts of even these 228 have long since left the country. Therefore, physically the ruling mono-coalition cannot take decisions on its own. Hence, the 'sawyers' in the form of deputy groups are simply indispensable for the parliament's stable work.

According to the Chesno movement's calculations for October 2025, 'Restoration of Ukraine' voted in sync with 'Servants of the People' in 75% of cases, and 'Platform for Life and Peace' in 61%. Only the 'Dovira' group is more loyal to the majority (84% of joint votes).

According to Chesno, the deputy groups 'Restoration of Ukraine' and 'Platform for Life and Peace' are among the leaders in joint voting with the majority

graphic: Chesno movement

The public initiative 'Golka' calculated in August this year the five MPs from the former OPZZh who most support the majority with their votes. Serhiy Larin, Oleksandr Kachny, Serhiy Lvovochkin, Ihor Kisilov, Oleksandr Puzanov support the government in 97–99% of votes. For contrast: in 2022 year, when these MPs were still part of OPZZh, their support did not exceed 38%.

Given this, the logic of the ultra-pragmatic leadership of the pro-presidential party is clear. Why spoil relations with partners who, despite their status as political 'war prisoners', could engage in sabotage and instead of disciplined pressing of the required buttons, take a different path.

Moreover, this is particularly unnecessary ahead of a series of highly important votes announced by the president. The leverage these satellites of 'Servants' have was demonstrated by lengthy battles over depriving Yuriy Boyko of the title of Hero of Ukraine and banning the UOC MP – the relevant initiatives were blocked precisely by the forces of former 'mouthpieces of the Kremlin' in the Rada. Yet both decisions were ultimately pushed through.

'Cynical reality'

The attempt to deprive local council deputies of mandates, sneaking into the project 13618, is another 'red line' for former 'OPZZh' members.

'This amendment was proposed by Roman Lozinsky to the committee by letter, although by the rules the deadline for amendments to bills passed at first reading has long since expired. But the committee approved it and included it in the bill,' says the main author Ivan Krulko from Batkivshchyna. 'And this really affected its consideration in the second reading, because our parliamentary majority exists only on paper, and Servants have to bargain, including with representatives of the banned parties. This may be the reason the bill simply won't be brought into the session hall. That is the cynical reality'.

Ivan Krulko – the main author of bill 13618 – hopes that the key norm on accelerated recall and replacement of local council deputies, which already passed the first reading, will still be voted on.

photo: Ivan Krulko/Facebook

Krulko hopes to still find a way for the key norm on accelerated recall and replacement to be voted on.

"I understand both the author of this amendment who submitted it, and the deputies who supported it," Krulko says. "This issue has two sides: some believe the framing is entirely fair, others think it shouldn’t be done for various reasons. Some are opposed due to loyalty to banned parties, others because they believe that depriving that many deputies of authority would render some local councils, especially in the east, nonfunctional."

The author of the controversial amendment, Roman Lozinsky, criticizes the bill 13618 for trying to introduce a 'turbo mode of recall of deputies,' which would entrench party dictatorship. He, however, sees his proposal as a major positive and notes that the committee supported it unanimously – even by former OPZZh representatives.

The author of the controversial amendment, Roman Lozinsky, claims a strong influence of MPs from ex-OPZZh on shaping the agenda in the Verkhovna Rada

photo: Roman Lozinsky/Facebook

'To our great regret, today in the Verkhovna Rada the influence of pro-Russian remnants of the Party of Regions on agenda-setting is so great that they can block the inclusion of bills with such amendments,' Lozinsky laments, adding that the push to deprive MPs from OPZZh and Co. should have been pursued in 2022–2023 years ago, when the court decision banning these parties just took effect. 'But the government's proposal on this was not even brought to the parliamentary floor'.

That Lozinsky's amendment put on hold the bill's progression to the floor 13618 was confirmed by sources in 'Hlavkom' in 'Sluga Narodu'.

No chance?

Recall that replacing bans on deputies from banned parties in case of mass deprivation without elections is not feasible, and thus some local councils could become unable to operate. This is indeed one of the cautions for such a mass 'cleansing.' But such councils are not that many, and the bill passed at first reading 14405, which allows a local council to work with a third of its staff, partly solves this problem. Moreover, most councils where such political forces prevailed have already stopped functioning: some ended up in occupied territories, some simply cannot gather for meetings (some deputies fled, some are detained on charges of treason and collaboration). In places where local councils became effectively incapacitated, governance passed to military administrations.

But there's another moment: in many local councils deputies from banned parties, who became independents or formed groups with abstruse names, as in parliament, are part of informal 'coalitions' with local branches of parliamentary parties. And losing these allies is undesirable.

Head of the Ukrainian Civic Coalition 'Committee of Voters' Oleksiy Koshel is convinced: parliament must create conditions for deputies from banned parties to lose their deputy mandate at least at the local level.

"This discussion has been going on for 4,5 years, and many authoritative jurists, constitutional law experts nearly unanimously say that the presence of deputies from those Kremlin-banned pro-Russian parties in parliament is nonsense," Koshel says. "The main obstacle to adopting this norm is likely unofficial obligations of the majority and, in general, the power to groups created on the basis of the former OPZZh. You cannot touch mandates of MPs from that party because it's forbidden by the Constitution. But they could have been deprived of leadership positions in profile committees, the ability to represent the parliament in various international delegations, etc. Yet none of these minimal steps were taken."

In sum, an expert concludes that the bill with Lozinsky's amendment has no chance of adoption.

Doubts persist whether this norm will work, and former MP and one of the authors of the Electoral Code, Oleksandr Chernenko: "The patriotic wing of the 'Sluga,' together with 'European Solidarity' and 'Golos,' will provide votes. But pragmatic 'deal-makers' and majoritarian MPs will not. So this is a pure declaration and a cosmetic PR."

Golos movement editor-in-chief Oleksandr Salyzhenko also believes that after the missed chance in 2022 to quickly remove pro-Russian forces from the political field, the government is unlikely to pursue a conflict with them now. However, he expects that the norm on strengthening imperative mandates, embedded in 13618, will be pushed through via a 'Plan B' – an amendment to some other bill.

Ultimately, the fierce struggle with pro-Russian legacy again boils down to the arithmetic of backstage deals. Moreover, such a situation is convenient for the leadership of the majority – why not tease the nerves of parliament's 'war prisoners' by showing new threats?

Pavel Vueets, 'Glavkom'