dw.com
Yanukovych Jr.'s Coal Scheme Earns Billions from Occupied Ukraine
Alexander Yanukovych's companies exported nearly 500,000 tons of coal from Russian-occupied Ukrainian territories in 2023-2024, earning billions of rubles through a complex scheme involving low-priced sales to an offshore company and resale at a higher price, primarily to Turkey.
- How is Alexander Yanukovych profiting from the sale of coal from Russian-occupied Ukrainian territories, and what are the immediate financial implications?
- Alexander Yanukovych, son of former Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych, earns billions of rubles through companies linked to him by selling coal from Russian-occupied Ukrainian territories. This was revealed in an investigation by the publication "Vazhnye istorii" on February 4th, 2024, showing that in 2023-2024, his associated structures exported nearly half a million tons of coal from Russia, primarily to Turkey.
- What role do offshore companies play in facilitating the coal export scheme, and how does this impact international efforts to hold those responsible accountable?
- The coal, sourced from firms in the Donetsk region such as "Donugli", "Vostokugoll", and several mines, was sold via Energoresurs, a company registered in Rostov-on-Don. Energoresurs, owned and directed by Yanukovych's former subordinates, sold coal at a low price of 5700 rubles/ton to Energy Union (BVI), allowing for tax avoidance and resale at higher prices, indicating potential affiliation between these companies.
- What are the long-term implications of this scheme for the Ukrainian economy and the ongoing conflict, considering the use of occupied territories' resources and the potential for sanctions evasion?
- This scheme highlights the exploitation of occupied territories for personal financial gain. The low sale price to Energy Union facilitates profit maximization, while the shift in export destinations from EU countries (pre-2022) to Turkey (post-2022) reflects the impact of EU sanctions. The involvement of offshore entities further obscures the financial trail and complicates accountability.
Cognitive Concepts
Framing Bias
The headline and opening paragraph immediately establish Yanukovych's guilt by focusing on his alleged involvement in a billion-ruble scheme. This sets a negative tone and could predispose the reader to believe the accusations without presenting a full picture. The emphasis on the scale of the alleged operation – "billions of rubles" – is likely designed to shock and influence the reader's opinion.
Language Bias
The article uses strong and accusatory language, such as "зарабатывает миллиарды рублей на продаже угля с оккупированных Россией украинских территорий" (earns billions of rubles selling coal from Ukrainian territories occupied by Russia). This phrasing implies guilt and lacks neutrality. More neutral phrasing might describe the transactions without implying illicit activity, such as "engages in the export of coal from the region." The frequent use of phrases suggesting illegal actions strengthens the impression of wrongdoing.
Bias by Omission
The article focuses on the alleged scheme of Alexander Yanukovych, but it omits potential counterarguments or perspectives that could challenge the accusations. It doesn't mention any attempts to contact Yanukovych or his associates for comment, which could be seen as a bias by omission. Further investigation into the financial transactions and relationships between the involved companies would strengthen the analysis.
False Dichotomy
The article presents a clear picture of illicit activity, without exploring other potential explanations for the transactions. While the evidence presented suggests a scheme, a more nuanced approach would acknowledge the possibility of alternative interpretations.
Sustainable Development Goals
The article highlights how Alexander Yanukovych, son of the former Ukrainian president, is profiting from the sale of coal from Russian-occupied Ukrainian territories. This activity exacerbates economic inequality within Ukraine by diverting resources from the legitimate economy and concentrating wealth in the hands of a select few connected to the former regime. The vast profits generated contribute to a system where a small elite benefits while the broader population, particularly those in conflict-affected areas, suffers economically. The low price of coal sold by Energoresurs and its subsequent resale at higher prices further indicates an unfair distribution of wealth.