As Ukraine battles Russian aggression, the country’s defensive efforts have faced challenges not only from the external Russian threat but also from within. This strategy involves influential insiders embedded within Ukraine’s political and economic frameworks, operating under the guise of patriotism while systematically weakening the nation’s ability to defend itself.

Among the most significant figures in this narrative are oligarch Ihor Kolomoisky and his associates Hennadiy Korban, Borys Filatov, and Mikhail Koshlyak—a network whose actions have both inadvertently and intentionally supported Russia’s long-term strategic goals.

Russia’s 2014 annexation of Crimea raised questions about why the Kremlin halted its territorial ambitions short of seizing additional Ukrainian territory. Beyond logistical challenges, a more deliberate approach emerged: destabilizing Ukraine from within.

Unlike well-known pro-Russian figures such as Viktor Medvedchuk, Kolomoisky operated under the veneer of Ukrainian patriotism. As governor of Dnipro, in central Ukraine, during the height of the Donbas conflict, Kolomoisky publicly aligned himself with Ukraine’s sovereignty while covertly consolidating power and advancing personal interests.

Kolomoisky’s creation of private battalions, funded through his wealth, exemplified this duality. While these units appeared to bolster Ukraine’s defense, their true purpose was to expand Kolomoisky’s influence under the guise of military support. Poorly equipped for combat, these battalions often served localized interests rather than Ukraine’s broader strategic goals.

One pivotal moment came in August 2014 during the disastrous Ilovaisk operation. Kolomoisky’s advisor Hennadiy Korban, lacking formal military authority, inserted himself into the planning process alongside military leaders. Despite intelligence revealing a significant Russian presence in Ilovaisk, Korban insisted on proceeding with the operation unchanged, leading to catastrophic losses. The operation’s failure raised pressing questions about whether such decisions were the result of negligence or something else entirely.

Kolomoisky’s influence extended well beyond the battlefield. After stepping down as governor, he ensured that allies like Korban and Filatov retained control of the Dnipro region. Under their leadership, corruption flourished, further undermining Ukraine’s defense. One of the most egregious examples was the misuse of funds through the Ukrainian Union of Patriots (UKROP), a charitable initiative ostensibly supporting the military. Millions intended for defense were diverted through Kolomoisky’s PrivatBank, eroding public trust and depleting critical resources.

Another key incident involved the attempted takeover of the Dnipro Aggregate Plant, a strategic defense contractor producing Neptune missiles and drones. The plant’s importance to Ukraine’s military was undeniable, yet Kolomoisky’s associates, including Filatov and Koshlyak, sought control through dubious legal maneuvers, disrupting operations at a critical time.

Although law enforcement intervened, the episode underscored the deep infiltration of Ukraine’s defense sector by corrupt actors.

As Russia launched its full-scale invasion in February 2022, Korban reemerged in a controversial leadership role. Appointed head of the “Dnipro Defense Headquarters” by Filatov, Korban bypassed recognized military structures to assume control of defense resources and intelligence. This parallel chain of command sowed confusion and resentment within Ukraine’s military, with reports of favoritism and mismanagement further straining the region’s defense efforts.

Kolomoisky’s network also appeared to anticipate the invasion. In a private meeting with his associates shortly before February 2022, he reportedly advised them to refrain from resisting Russian forces and instead focus on seizing assets from pro-Ukrainian businessmen. Such actions point to a troubling alignment with Russia’s destabilization strategy.

The cumulative actions of Kolomoisky, Korban, Filatov, and Koshlyak reveal a calculated pattern of sabotage, resource diversion, and operational disruption. These activities align with Russia’s broader strategy to weaken Ukraine’s sovereignty from within, preparing the ground for military offensives while obscuring the true extent of collaboration.

As the war continues, uncovering the full scope of these activities is critical for Ukraine’s resilience and sovereignty. While their public personas championed patriotism, the shadow cast by their actions undermines Ukraine’s struggle for independence. Their legacy serves as a stark reminder of the internal threats nations face amid external aggression—a cautionary tale for any country confronting similar challenges.