Tuesday, May 26, 2026
Today's Edition

EveryNews

Stories that matter, signal over noise

War

Zelenskyy Gathered "Servants" During Scandal Peak and Set Horizon to November: What Was Actually Discussed Behind Closed Doors

The November 20 meeting took place not due to diplomatic optimism, but against the backdrop of an acute internal crisis — a corruption scandal at Energoatom and ultimatums regarding Yermak's resignation. Zelensky outlined conditions for exiting the hot phase, but left open the question of mechanisms for their implementation.

Tetiana Suchkova-Ladik

By Tetiana Suchkova-Ladik

May 25, 2026 · 3 min read

Zelenskyy Gathered "Servants" During Scandal Peak and Set Horizon to November: What Was Actually Discussed Behind Closed Doors

On the evening of November 20, President Volodymyr Zelensky met with the parliamentary faction of the Servant of the People party. Officially — to discuss strategic priorities for the next six months. Unofficially — to extinguish a fire: some deputies threatened to leave the faction if the head of the Presidential Office Andriy Yermak did not resign following the resonant NABU investigation as part of Operation Midas.

November as a horizon, guarantees as a condition

According to faction leader David Arakhamia and deputy Olha Vasylevska-Smagluk, the next six months should become a time of "maximum concentration and stabilization." Zelensky named the conditions under which the hot phase of the war could end: reliable security guarantees for Ukraine, steady support for the army, and compliance with IMF requirements. Neither timelines nor specific formats of guarantees were clarified at the meeting.

The president had voiced a similar position earlier in other formats. Late in 2024, in a conversation with Sky News, he allowed for the completion of the hot phase on the condition that the territory controlled by Ukraine would be under the NATO umbrella. In December 2025, a published draft peace plan with 20 points provided for security guarantees "analogous to Article 5" and preservation of an army of 800,000 personnel. In other words, the rhetoric of November 20 is not an innovation, but an internal transmission of an already existing position to his own faction.

The real agenda: Yermak and votes for the budget

According to NV citing sources in the faction, the meeting included "sensitive issues." Zelensky made clear that he would not dismiss Yermak. This decision disappointed the so-called "coalition of the resolute" — an internal group of deputies that had been pushing for personnel changes in the Presidential Office.

A parliament in wartime must be a functioning parliament. The agreement is obvious — everyone must work for Ukraine.

— Zelensky, evening address of November 20

In parallel, another issue was smoldering: the faction lacked votes for the 2026 budget. According to LB.ua, deputies disagreed on wage reform and IMF conditions. "IMF markers are what we receive all other money under. The program itself is not that large, seven-plus billion, but if it is implemented — all other funds follow," explained one of the parliamentarians after a faction meeting with the government.

Context that went unspoken

The meeting took place at a moment when the "single majority" is de facto no longer a majority. As "Ukrainian Pravda" described in detail, the faction began to crumble in summer 2025 — after the Presidential Office lost its clash with anti-corruption bodies. Moreover, some parliamentarians openly dream of resigning their mandates and are waiting for the end of their term. Arakhamia continues to restrain these processes, assuring that everything will be resolved "soon."

In this context, talk of "six months of stabilization" and the November horizon is simultaneously both a strategic message to partners and an attempt to give his own faction a temporary benchmark to prevent it from falling apart.

  • Security guarantees — the key condition for Zelensky to end the hot phase, but their specific format has yet to be agreed with allies.
  • Army support — steady support for the Armed Forces is named as priority №1 alongside the diplomatic process.
  • IMF requirements — compliance with the program is presented as a condition for maintaining the entire external financial flow, not just the Fund's tranches.
  • Yermak remains — despite pressure from the "coalition of the resolute," the head of the Presidential Office retained his position, complicating internal faction unity.

If by the end of November the Servant of the People does not find votes to pass the 2026 budget within the timeframe acceptable to the IMF, the "stabilization" horizon that Zelensky outlined at the meeting risks becoming yet another domestic political deadline fiction — this time documented by the faction itself.

Related

Latest

Business

EU Against Google: Why the Latest Fine Could Change More Than Previous Ones

# European Regulators Target Google Again — This Time Over Digital Markets Act Violations. What's Behind the Accusations and Why It Matters Beyond the Corporation European regulators have renewed their scrutiny of Google, this time focusing on alleged violations of the Digital Markets Act. The charges underscore Brussels' increasingly aggressive stance on big tech monopolies and what officials say are anticompetitive practices. The accusations center on how Google leverages its dominance across multiple digital services — from search to advertising to mobile platforms — to disadvantage competitors. Regulators claim the company is using its market power in ways that stifle innovation and limit consumer choice. The case carries significance far beyond Google itself. It signals how the EU is attempting to enforce its landmark Digital Markets Act, legislation designed to curb the gatekeeping power of tech giants. A potential penalty could set precedent for how other large technology companies face similar scrutiny. For consumers and smaller tech firms, the outcome could reshape the digital landscape by creating more room for competition. For Google, fines and operational restrictions could fundamentally alter its business model in Europe, the world's most stringent regulatory market. The case also reflects a broader geopolitical divide, with the EU pursuing a regulatory approach that contrasts sharply with the lighter-touch oversight favored in the United States.

May 26, 2026