Ukraine’s New Cabinet: Neoliberal Reforms Threaten Wartime Solidarity
Saturday 26 July 2025, by Vitaliy Dudin
Ukraine’s first government reshuffle since Russia’s full-scale invasion has brought Yulia Svyrydenko to power as Prime Minister, but this change offers little hope for ordinary Ukrainians facing wartime hardships. Rather than addressing critical shortages in defence resources and rising poverty, the new cabinet appears committed to accelerating neoliberal reforms that prioritise private capital over public welfare.
Key appointments include Oleksiy Sobolev, who will oversee both economic policy and environmental protection—a concerning merger that threatens to subordinate nature conservation to corporate interests. Meanwhile, former Finance Ministry official Denys Ulyutin’s appointment to social policy signals continued austerity measures. This analysis from a leading member of Ukraine’s Social Movement examines how the cabinet reshuffle represents not renewal, but an intensification of policies that risk deepening social inequality during the country’s most vulnerable period.
The government of Prime Minister Yulia Svyrydenko represents the Ukrainian elite’s familiar ineffectiveness in solving the people’s problems, combined with the forcing through of liberal reforms without proper discussion. The danger of adopting a new Labour Code will increase, as will the risks of the state losing valuable assets as a result of privatisation. Economy Minister Sobolev will be given environmental policy, likely to simplify corporate access to mineral resources. Such a step, together with blocking inspections (labour, environmental), will distance Ukraine from the EU. At the same time, the social sphere will be managed by someone from the Ministry of Finance, a department known for its commitment to cutting social spending according to International Monetary Fund (IMF) templates. The policy of such a government will inevitably lead to social stratification, excessive enrichment of the oligarchy and the inability to finance truly important things like defence and welfare.
On 17 July, Ukraine changed its government leadership for the first time since the beginning of the Russian invasion. But hardly anyone believes that the Cabinet of Ministers, headed by Prime Minister Yulia Svyrydenko, will be able to solve the most pressing problems of today: lack of defence resources, economic primitivisation, and the country’s depopulation. Much has been said about the new Prime Minister’s dependence on the Presidential Office. However, we would like to analyse the changes from a socio-political angle: what ideological priorities do the new government officials have and what should ordinary people expect?
Even More Capitalism?
Government policy will be set not just by bureaucrats, but by fanatical supporters of unbridled capitalist development – something directly opposed to the goal of preserving the country during war by putting all resources at the service of the state. Yulia Svyrydenko will likely squeeze the juices from the country and its people much more decisively for the prosperity of private capital:
her goal is to accelerate the sale of the wealth with which Ukraine is endowed, and the signing of the Subsoil Agreement in the USA was a vivid overture to this;
Ms Yulia will persistently promote the new Labour Code, which she developed as Economy Minister;
graduates of the Kyiv School of Economics [KSE - a prominent Ukrainian business school], which too generously valued her teaching, will have increasing influence. Last year, she earned over 3.1 million hryvnias [approximately €72,000] at this establishment, i.e. several times more than at her main job.
Under Yulia Svyrydenko’s tenure, the Ukrainian economy lost state control and reached a new level of dependence on foreign partners. She presented as a great victory the privatisation of the titanium giant – JSC "United Mining and Chemical Company" [Obyednana hirnycho-khimichna kompaniya], which strategically weakened Ukraine. She is responsible for industrial decline, the colossal scale of economically inactive population (12.5 million people), reduced social support for the unemployed and high levels of industrial injury (most deaths in Ukraine are not war-related). These indicators show labour market destabilisation and frankly unattractive working conditions. The dysfunctionality of labour inspections, which remain underfunded and rarely conduct control measures, deepens workers’ vulnerability.
And instead of dealing with these troubles in her new position, she will focus on endless reform, i.e. fulfilling obligations to business circles. It’s no surprise that her first step in her new status was announcing a one-year moratorium on business inspections (let’s clarify that such a moratorium formally operates anyway for the period of martial law according to the Cabinet resolution of 13.03.2022).
Two other KSE lecturers and adherents of turbo-neoliberalism have taken government positions: Oleksiy Sobolev (Minister of Economy, Environment and Agriculture) and Taras Kachka (Deputy Prime Minister for European and Euro-Atlantic Integration). The greatest threat to public interests comes from Mr Sobolev, who receives too many levers for promoting capital interests.
"Our main goal is to cancel as many regulations as possible" – this is how Oleksiy Sobolev described his main mission when he was Deputy Economy Minister. With his participation, the so-called Interdepartmental Working Group on Deregulation, by its own admission, conducted consultations on cancelling various rules only with business (they don’t care about the opinion of trade unions, who will be affected by the changes). He also participated in developing the Government Action Plan for Economic Activity Deregulation. Apart from purely caricature ideas like cancelling permits for healing or doing business in the exclusion zone [referring to the Chernobyl exclusion zone], there are also frankly dangerous ones like simplifying construction in nature reserves or water areas. Would the protagonists of deregulation themselves dream of living in a world where business can neglect the most basic environmental and social norms?
As a fierce opponent of any business inspections, Mr Oleksiy will bury hopes for strengthening labour inspections. Workers should not even hope that such a politician would want to expand the powers of the State Labour Service [Derzhpratsya], so that this service could counter employer tyranny. Let’s recall that the European Commission gave a low assessment to Ukraine’s European integration efforts in employment and social policy due to the lack of an effective system for monitoring compliance with labour rights. Since the minister listens exclusively to employers, the field of labour relations entrusted to him will move even further away from European standards worthy of emulation.
The transfer of the functions of the Ministry of Environmental Protection and Natural Resources under Oleksiy Sobolev’s wing directly threatens sustainable development interests. This will lead to obvious subordination of environmental policy to profitability considerations. This is probably being done to implement mineral extraction projects by US companies. It was the Ministry of Environment [Mindovkillya] that determined policy in the field of subsoil use and directed the activities of the State Service for Geology and Subsoil Use. Such a merger of ministries will mean a shift towards recognising natural wealth and land as commodities. And precisely O. Sobolev, given his significant experience in the investment sector, is the person for whom business benefits will come first. After all, a whole series of environmental organisations in their statement called these changes catastrophic.
Minimising Social Standards
A separate pain is the Ministry of Social Policy, Family and Unity, which will replace the previously existing Ministry of Social Policy [Minsotspolityka]. Instead of the completely empathy-deprived Oksana Zholnovych, who could compete even with Halyna Tretyakova in the number of scandalous statements, social policy will be managed by Denys Ulyutin, who was First Deputy Finance Minister. This department consistently opposes any expansion of social support and adheres to a course of strict austerity. Thanks to Mr Ulyutin, a Budget Declaration was pushed through, which froze all social standards for at least this year. Restraining the minimum wage at 8,000 hryvnias [approximately €186, or 30% of average wages] became one of the factors in the frightening growth of poverty, as masses of people can afford fewer and fewer goods due to the inflation spiral. Will this technocratic servant of the IMF care about the fate of pensioners, internally displaced persons or mothers? No less important is that MinFin and Ulyutin himself opposed filling the budget through additional taxation of bank income.
It has already become known that Denys Ulyutin was tasked with conducting an audit of all social benefits, and this will precede a review of payments towards their reduction. A threatening guideline for future transformations could be the recent phrase by ruling party MP Dmytro Hurin that "veterans should have no privileges".
It should be added that the person who drove the most dubious reforms of the last five years will not disappear from the Cabinet: in fact, Denys Shmyhal will head perhaps the most important body – the Ministry of Defence. According to legend, his task should be building elements of a war economy and increasing arms supplies. Although a war economy under these conditions can only be fiction, because it’s incompatible with such phenomena as selling off strategic assets (OKHK [United Mining and Chemical Company]) or depriving critical infrastructure workers of payments. After linking the Ministry of Strategic Industries’ [Minstratehprom] functionality to the MoD, there are grounds to assert that the defence industry sphere, where billions are spent, will become even more closed due to centralisation of flows and Shmyhal’s inability to interact with the public.
We face deteriorating living standards, liberal chaos in the economy and dismantling of social regulations, but at a much higher pace. The authorities have demonstrated an inability to draw conclusions from failures: a striking example is keeping the extremely irritating ministers of education and medicine, who are incompetent. Despite underfunding and incompetent experiments, ministers Oksen Lisovyy and Viktor Lyashko kept their positions. The most outraged should be precisely those working in the respective sectors, because they left the scandalous officials in their chairs, ignoring the opinions of nurses and teachers...
Change by Averting the Worst
In such a case, the Cabinet will not be a driver of development, but only of service to the elite. But in times of war, there can be no other good for the authorities than the good of the people, who bear the main burden. And only when the people see people in power who are concerned about their problems will the people be ready to do even more for the state.
Currently, the ruling class is not ready for sharp changes and is only capable of increasing the pace of controversial reforms to create the appearance of results. In the absence of elections, no one will let the people influence policy; instead, we face a struggle to preserve rights. The public should demand progressive changes, and their rejection will clearly demonstrate how futile are hopes for any improvements from changes in the composition of the Cabinet of Ministers.
Those ministers who most neglect public interests and lead elite lifestyles should receive maximum attention in the information field. It’s necessary to prove that their work (1) contributes to the enrichment of individuals; (2) harms the security and welfare of the people. The more people realise the inadequacy of officials to the scale of challenges – the more chances there are for implementing progressive policy in the future, when the restoration of competitive democracy becomes fact.
To bring closer breakthrough changes for strengthening defence and social cohesion, we need to stop adapting to the system of oligarchic capitalism. The reference point for such changes can be the statement-plan ["Zberegty krayinu, a ne oligarkhiv" - "Save the country, not the oligarchs"]. The state still has enough levers for Ukraine to become a truly independent and prosperous country.
21 July 2025
This article was originally published in Ukrainian on the progressive, ecosocialist and feminist website of “Sotsialnyy rukh”.
Translated into English for ESSF by Adam Novak
Attached documentsukraine-s-new-cabinet-neoliberal-reforms-threaten-wartime_a9101.pdf (PDF - 920.5 KiB)
Extraction PDF [->article9101]
Ukraine
You give us corruption, we give you revolution!
Free the Children! End the Starvation and Genocide!
Support the Russian-Ukrainian resistance against accelerating fascism worldwide
Ukrainian union leader comments on U.S. left
Ukraine at war, Ukraine in struggle...
Vitaliy Dudin is a member of Sotsialniy Rukh, Ukraine.
International Viewpoint is published under the responsibility of the Bureau of the Fourth International. Signed articles do not necessarily reflect editorial policy. Articles can be reprinted with acknowledgement, and a live link if possible.
Defying Putin’s 21st century gulag: How anti-war activists are using court to oppose Russia’s war on Ukraine
Opposition to war on trial
There are nine speeches in total, as well as two statements from people who appeared in court but made their statements elsewhere: from Kirill Butylin, who (as far as we know) was the first person to carry out a fire-bombing protest and put out a social media message; and from Savely Morozov, a young man from southern Russia who was eligible for conscription but who denounced the war at the conscription commission.
The first thing that struck me about these speeches was the deeply moral tone of many of these protesters, who have obviously been prepared to sacrifice an enormous amount just to make these speeches. Igor Paskar, for example, firebombed the office of the Federal Security Services where he lived and then stood there waiting to be arrested. He was detained and badly tortured. When he got to court, he said:
Do I regret what has happened? Yes, perhaps I’d wanted my life to turn out differently – but I acted according to my conscience, and my conscience remains clear.
He is now serving an eight-and-a-half years jail sentence.
The second thing that struck me is that they were addressed to the population, not to the government. Alexei Rozhkov firebombed a military recruitment centre where he lives. He was released from detention after an initial hearing — the unusual result of good work by his lawyers. Rozhkov then fled to Kyrgyzstan but was kidnapped, presumably by security forces, and returned to Russia for trial. He said:
I also have no doubt that millions of my fellow Russians, women and men, young and old, are opposed to the war too, and, like me, are convinced that the war is not a solution, but a dead end. But they have no way – without risking ending up behind bars – to do anything to be heard, to ensure their opinion was listened to.
Ukrainian artist Bohdan Ziza splashed blue and yellow paint — the colors of the Ukrainian flag — on government offices in Crimea, which has been occupied since 2014. He filmed himself doing it and saying: “I address myself above all to Crimeans and to Russians.” In court, he said his action “was a cry from the heart, from my conscience, to those who were and are afraid — just as I was afraid — but who also did not want, and do not want, this war.”
From pacifism to defeatism
The third thing that struck me about these statements was their very different starting points. On the central issue of the war, their views range from pacifist to defeatist. Sasha Skochilenko, an artist jailed in Saint Petersburg for writing anti-war messages on labels in a supermarket, was fortunately freed as a result of a prisoner exchange. When she was in court, she did not know she was going to be freed. She said:
I am a pacifist. Pacifists have always existed. It’s a certain creed of people who place the highest value on life. We believe every conflict can be resolved peacefully. I can’t bear to kill even a spider, frightened by the very thought of taking a life.
Alexei Gorinov, a very prominent political prisoner, also expressed himself in court very much in terms of pacifism, and quoted Lev Tolstoy.
In contrast, we have the attitude of Darya Kozyreva, a Saint Petersburg student jailed for laying flowers at the statue of Taras Shevchenko, a Ukrainian national poet. In court, she made clear that, for her, the central issue is Ukraine’s right to self-determination and clearly justified Ukrainians asserting that right by force of arms. She said the war is a criminal intrusion on Ukraine’s sovereignty, that Ukraine does not need a big brother, and that it will fight anyone who tries to invade.
Another example is Ruslan Siddiqi, an anarchist who tried to inflict tangible damage on the Russian armed forces by detonating bombs that derailed a train taking munitions to the front. He justified this as a military action on Ukraine's side, saying he thinks of himself as a partisan who should be classified as a prisoner of war.
The final example, who also made a very clear statement of hope for Russia's defeat, was 68-year-old Alexander Skobov. He was first detained in 1978, in Soviet times, tried for activity in the dissident movement and subjected to forcible psychiatric treatment. This year, 47 years later, he was again in court on charges related to what he said about the war.
In court, he spelled out three principles of his political organisation, the Free Russia Forum: the unconditional return to Ukraine of all its internationally recognised territories occupied by Russia, including Crimea; support for all those fighting for this goal, including Russian citizens who joined the Ukrainian Armed Forces; and support for “armed resistance to this aggression on the battlefield and in the aggressor’s rear”, but excluding terrorist attacks on civilians.
Putin’s Russia: The 21st century gulag
Regarding the scale of repression in Russia, I propose we use the phrase “the 21st century gulag”, which I think is fully justified. Memorial: Political Prisoners Support, one of the main non-governmental organisations supporting political prisoners, has a list with more than 3000 names on it. The last time there were comparable numbers of political prisoners was in the mid 1970s under Leonid Brezhnev.
In addition to the people detained in Russia, there are many prisoners from the occupied territories of Ukraine. In their cases, there is a great deal of uncertainty about the numbers. The Kharkiv Human Rights Protection Group, in a submission to the International Criminal Court, identified more than 5000 civilian victims of “enforced disappearances” from the occupied territories. These people may be in detention or dead. In most cases their families do not know.
In 2023, two Ukrainian human rights groups, Zmina and the Center for Civil Liberties, compiled a list of 585 arrested civilians who were in detention or missing due to their political and civic activity in the occupied territories. This list included local government representatives, former military personnel, volunteers, activists and journalists.
The cases of political prisoners from Crimea are more known because of the strength of civil society organisations there. The Crimean Human Rights Group currently has a register of 265 of such prisoners, many from the Crimean Tatar community. Then, there are also thousands of civilian prisoners who have been moved from the so-called people’s republics of Donetsk and Luhansk. They were tried under very local arbitrary legal systems and transferred to the Russian prison system.
Solidarity with anti-war political prisoners
In the world we live in, with militarism and authoritarianism on the rise, the anti-war protests in Russia have international significance.
It is worth making a comparison: in Britain, which is very far from facing the sort of dictatorship that rules Russia, or even the threats to democracy that we see now in the United States, the criminalisation of anti-war protesters follows a very similar Kafkaesque ideological logic to what we see in Russia. Palestine Action, which organises direct action protests against arms deliveries to Israel, is threatened with a ban under anti-terror legislation. Singers who have denounced the genocide in Gaza are investigated by the police. The parallels with some Russian cases are striking.
What can be done in Western countries about these political prisoners? First, we can raise awareness, particularly in left-wing circles, where the influence of campism remains strong. By campism, I mean the idea that Russia is not really an imperialist power and does not deserve the same condemnation as the US or Israel.
Another thing is writing letters. It is very difficult to write letters from Western countries, which is a standard form of support for political prisoners. It is possible for Russian speakers, but in practice not for others. But we can send money to people who organise parcels and letters. Memorial is the biggest and most well-known. There is also OVD-info, which has been doing fantastic work over the past three years. And I have also already mentioned Solidarity Zone, the Crimea Human Rights Group and the Kharkiv Human Rights Protection Group, which has its roots in Memorial. These are all organisations that fully deserve our support.
No comments:
Post a Comment