Ukrainian oligarch and lawyer Victor Medvedchuk (left) and poet Vasyl Stus, one of several dissidents Medvedchuk “defended” in the former Soviet courts. Source: TSN

Victor Medvedchuk’s attitude toward Ukrainians

Victor Medvedchuk is a Ukrainian oligarch and people’s deputy (legislator) from the pro-Russian political party Opposition Platform — For Life. Putin is the godfather of Medvedchuk’s daughter — the significance of which should not be lost on anyone.

Opposition Platform, as Medvedchuk himself demonstrates, promotes a vision of Ukraine being closely affiliated with Russia. They advocate for dominance of the Russian language and culture in Ukraine, as opposed to that of Ukrainian. Party leaders, including Medvedchuk, visit Moscow often, regardless of the ongoing hybrid war with Russia. Party representative Yulia Liovochkina consistently votes in favor of Russia in the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (PACE). She does so against the interests of Ukraine and contrary to all other voting members of the Ukrainian delegation.

In an interview with the BBC, Medvedchuk openly stated that his perception of most Ukrainians is negative, adding that 46% of them have a negative attitude towards him:

“Well, that’s ok. I have a bad attitude toward them as well. How could it be different … 60% in Ukraine consider Russia to be an aggressor, and I don’t think so. Should I be among that 60%? No, I will be in the other part.”

As outlined in detail in the previous article about Medvedchuk, during the dissident trials, only lawyers affiliated with the KGB were assigned the most important political cases. According to Hryhoriy Omelchenko, and archival materials provided by him, Medvedchuk loyally served the KGB.

Medvedchuk’s court actions in the Stus trial prove that he worked against the Ukrainian people and for the Soviet regime. During the hearings, Medvedchuk was required to defend Stus, but did nothing. He should have rigorously defended Stus, as was required by Soviet law. Even though that law was restrictive, it could have been manoeuvred to his client’s benefit. Medvedchuk, however, did not support any petitions made by Stus.

In the case against dissident Mykola Kuntsevych, not only did Medvedchuk fail to defend him, but he went so far as to request that the prosecutor add the previous term of conviction to the current one, making the full term 21 months longer.

What is Medvedchuk bringing as a new lawsuit

Ukrainian poet and dissident Vasyl Stus was commemorated with renewed vigor in 2019, with the release of two important works. These were a film in the genre of biographical drama, Zaboronenyi, and a history book, The Case of Vasyl Stus. The latter was based on archival materials by Vakhtanh Kipiani.

Both the film and book criticize the role of defence lawyer Viktor Medvedchuk in the final trial brought against Stus in 1980. Stus was sentenced to 15 years of forced labor in Siberia, during which he died under suspicious circumstances. His crime was to criticize the Soviet regime in his publications, culminating in his scathing collection of verses Cheerful Cemetery. The title perfectly reflects Stus’s attitude to the Soviet Union.

Following the release of the tributary film and book in 2019, Medvedchuk filed lawsuits, claiming the works contained false facts and thus caused damage to his reputation.

Initially, as revealed by the filmmakers, they were contacted by “Medvedchuk’s administration,” and warned that if they did not cut all the footage on Medvedchuk they would face serious consequences — provocations — and would not be able to complete their project. However, as soon as the threats were made public, civil society activists launched a protest and thwarted his attempts. As a result, the scenes with Medvedchuk remained in the film.


In October 2019, Medvedchuk filed the lawsuit against historian Vakhtanh Kipiani, demanding that he cut certain content from his book or face a total ban.

Filing a lawsuit is not an uncommon form of vindictiveness. However, much more harmful for Kipiani has been the delay for the actual hearing. It has now lasted half a year, despite the absurdity of Medvedchuk’s charges and his unconstitutional attempts to ban the book.

The same retaliation may await the online magazine Bukvy. On 6 February, Bukvy published an article affirming that Medvedchuk had filed a lawsuit against them as well.

The charges against Bukvy are just as absurd as in the Kipiani case. Medvedchuk was dissatisfied with the following sentence in the article on Zaboronenyi:

“During the trial, Medvedchuk violated a lawyer’s ethics by purporting his client’s [Stus] guilt, contrary to the client.”

Medvedchuk’s representative claims that in 1980 Medvedchuk conducted the case in accordance with the legislation of that time. He asserts that nobody could have opposed the “system” then.

However, the representative would have known that no lawyer was forced to partner with the KGB for personal benefits, and therefore be subject to their control. It was Medvedchuk’s personal choice to advance his career through such an affiliation. The responsibility lies with him.

People have the right to learn the truth about this oligarch who wields his power through the two Ukrainian TV stations he owns — not to mention the influence he can exert as a member of parliament.

Medvedchuk’s lawsuits against those journalists and historians who have exposed his role in the case against Stus, are not the only of his malicious lawsuits. Earlier, he reacted in the same manner, and sued other publications that had ostensibly “damaged his reputation.”

No case, however, has been as significant as this current one. Clearly, the fight between Vasyl Stus, a dissident, and a soviet lawyer is not yet over. Publicizing the truth still bears ramifications for journalists who — at the very least — are robbed of weeks and in some cases months of their lives and creativity that can never be regained.

The real blame, however, lies at the feet of parliamentarians and the president, who have neglected to create a court system that would reject such bogus cases outright. Recent lawsuits against Ukrainian blogger Vitaliy Pojarkov or military volunteer Marusia Zvirobiy are more indication of their failure to do so.

Zelenskyy’s team is also at fault. Despite his pre-election promises, the new president prefers to use the courts for political persecution rather than to reform them. Yet, this was exactly his criticism of former President Petro Poroshenko,

Read also:

Dear readers! We need your help. COVID-19 has hit independent media outlets hard, but even more so in Ukraine, where most outlets are controlled by oligarchs. To make matters worse, several English-language media sources from Ukraine have closed recently. And even worse, this comes at a time of troubling government tendencies and amid a pro-Russian resurgence in Ukraine. Help keep us online and reporting on the most important of Ukrainian issues for you in these troubling times, bringing the voices of civic society to the forefront of the information war. Our articles are free for everyone to use but we depend on our readers to keep going. We are a small independent journalist team on a shoestring budget and have no political or state affiliation. If you like what you see, please Help keep us online and reporting on the most important of Ukrainian issues for you in these troubling times, bringing the voices of civic society to the forefront of the information war. Our articles are free for everyone to use but we depend on our readers to keep going. We are a small independent journalist team on a shoestring budget and have no political or state affiliation. If you like what you see, please support us with a donation

Related

Tags: Andriy Portnov, court hearings, freedom of media, freedom of speech, media freedom, Viktor Medvedchuk, Volodymyr Zelenskyy (Zelenskyi / Zelensky / Zelenskiy)