Andriy Yermak: The Quiet Power Behind Ukraine’s Wartime Presidency

For years, Andriy Yermak operated largely outside the spotlight. Unlike Ukraine’s charismatic president Volodymyr Zelenskyy, Yermak rarely cultivated a public image built on speeches or mass appeal. Yet inside Kyiv’s corridors of power, diplomats, intelligence officials and political insiders increasingly came to view him as one of the most influential men in Eastern Europe — a strategist, negotiator and gatekeeper whose reach often appeared to extend far beyond his formal title.

To supporters, he was the disciplined organiser who helped keep Ukraine’s state machinery functioning during war. To critics, he became the embodiment of concentrated, opaque power around Zelenskyy’s inner circle. Somewhere between those competing portraits lies the story of a man whose rise reflects both the transformation of modern Ukraine and the tensions that continue to shape it.

Born in Kyiv in 1971, when Ukraine was still part of the Soviet Union, Yermak grew up in an educated family with strong ties to diplomacy and state administration. His father reportedly worked within Soviet diplomatic structures, exposing him early to the language and culture of international politics. Unlike many later Ukrainian nationalists who emerged from western regions of the country, Yermak belonged to the more cosmopolitan, Russian-speaking milieu of Kyiv’s late Soviet elite.

He studied at the prestigious Institute of International Relations at Kyiv’s Taras Shevchenko National University, where he specialised in international private law. The institute has long been considered one of Ukraine’s elite training grounds for diplomats, lawyers and future political operators. Former classmates and colleagues have often described Yermak as disciplined, discreet and highly ambitious rather than ideological.

After graduating in the mid-1990s, he entered the legal profession during the turbulent years following the collapse of the Soviet Union. Ukraine at the time was undergoing chaotic privatisation, the rapid rise of oligarchs and the formation of networks that would dominate post-Soviet business and politics for decades.

Yermak carved out a niche in intellectual property law and media-related legal work. In 1997 he founded his own law firm and later developed extensive connections within Ukraine’s entertainment and television industries. This proved decisive for his future.

By the early 2010s, Yermak had become involved in film production and media financing through his company Garnet International Media Group. He worked on several Ukrainian film projects and built ties with producers in both Ukraine and abroad. It was through the entertainment world that he first met Zelenskyy, then a comedian and producer running the enormously successful Studio Kvartal 95.

The relationship between the two men would eventually reshape Ukrainian politics.

Unlike many around Zelenskyy, Yermak was not a television personality or public campaigner. He became valuable precisely because he was not visible. He understood contracts, negotiations, foreign business structures and political risk. By the time Zelenskyy launched his presidential campaign in 2019, Yermak had already become part of the candidate’s trusted informal network.

After Zelenskyy’s landslide victory, Yermak was initially appointed presidential adviser on foreign affairs. His rise was extraordinarily rapid. Within less than a year, he replaced Andriy Bohdan as head of the presidential office — effectively Ukraine’s chief of staff.

That appointment marked the beginning of his transformation from backroom lawyer into geopolitical operator.

During the years that followed, especially after Russia’s full-scale invasion in 2022, Yermak became one of the defining figures of wartime Ukraine. He coordinated diplomacy, oversaw contacts with Western governments, helped manage sanctions initiatives and frequently acted as Ukraine’s de facto chief negotiator with foreign partners.

Foreign diplomats often remarked that access to Zelenskyy increasingly ran through Yermak. Some Western officials considered him indispensable; others regarded him with caution. Several reports in European and American media described him as Ukraine’s “green cardinal” — a reference both to his influence and to the military-style olive clothing worn by Ukraine’s wartime leadership.

His network of relationships expanded dramatically during the war. He developed close ties with senior officials in Washington, London and Brussels, while also playing a visible role in Ukraine’s peace initiatives and prisoner exchanges with Russia. He co-led sanctions working groups involving Western experts and became one of the principal Ukrainian advocates for maintaining military aid and diplomatic pressure on Moscow.

At the same time, his growing authority generated criticism inside Ukraine itself. Opponents accused him of centralising power excessively around the presidential office and weakening institutional checks and balances. Some military figures reportedly resented civilian political interference in battlefield decisions. Others questioned the opaque nature of his influence over appointments, intelligence coordination and foreign negotiations.

Ethically and politically, Yermak remains a deeply polarising figure.

No comprehensive evidence has ever emerged proving direct personal corruption during most of his time in office. However, suspicions and allegations followed him persistently. Critics argued that he blurred lines between state administration, political loyalty and informal influence networks. Supporters countered that wartime conditions required an unusually concentrated command structure and that Ukraine’s survival depended on rapid, centralised decision-making.

By 2025 and 2026, however, anti-corruption investigations involving figures close to Zelenskyy’s administration increasingly touched Yermak’s orbit. Several international reports linked him to wider investigations into alleged money laundering and abuse of office, though Yermak consistently denied wrongdoing.

These investigations significantly damaged his reputation internationally, particularly as Ukraine sought deeper integration with the European Union and continued Western financial support. In Kyiv, some observers argued that Yermak had become politically toxic; others believed he was being targeted precisely because of his proximity to power.

One of the more intriguing and less documented aspects of Yermak’s profile concerns his reputed connections to Switzerland.

Officially, little concrete information exists. Yet for years rumours have circulated in diplomatic and financial circles about Yermak maintaining particularly qualified relationships within Swiss political, legal and financial environments. These suggestions have ranged from professional legal contacts and discreet financial networks to the use of Switzerland as a venue for sensitive diplomacy and informal communication channels.

Part of this speculation intensified after Switzerland hosted Ukraine-related peace discussions and sanctions coordination efforts during the war. Some observers in Kyiv quietly noted that Yermak appeared unusually comfortable operating within Swiss diplomatic and institutional culture. Others pointed to longstanding links between Ukrainian business elites and Swiss financial infrastructure, especially in Geneva and Zurich.

No verified evidence has publicly demonstrated improper conduct linked to Switzerland. Still, the persistence of these rumours reflects the broader perception surrounding Yermak: that of a man deeply embedded in transnational elite networks, operating comfortably between politics, law, diplomacy and business.

Personally, Yermak has always cultivated secrecy. He rarely speaks publicly about his private life, has avoided the celebrity culture that surrounded Zelenskyy and often projects a deliberately restrained image. Associates describe him as intensely hardworking, loyal to a small circle and highly attentive to personal relationships. Critics, however, characterise him as controlling and excessively protective of his influence.

His list of allies and adversaries grew together.

Among his closest allies stood Zelenskyy himself, whose trust in Yermak remained remarkably durable even during political crises. Internationally, he developed productive relationships with senior American and European officials, although some reportedly preferred dealing with Ukraine’s military or intelligence leadership rather than through Yermak’s office.

His adversaries included rival factions inside Ukraine’s political elite, anti-corruption activists suspicious of concentrated presidential power and some military figures who believed civilian leadership interfered too deeply in operational matters.

Yet regardless of whether one views him as patriot, power broker or political survivor, Andriy Yermak undeniably became one of the central architects of wartime Ukraine.

He belongs to a generation of post-Soviet operators shaped less by ideology than by adaptability — lawyers who became producers, producers who became diplomats, and diplomats who ultimately found themselves directing state power during one of Europe’s most dangerous conflicts since the Second World War.

Whether history ultimately remembers him as a loyal statesman, an overly powerful gatekeeper or something in between will depend not only on the outcome of the investigations surrounding his later years, but also on how Ukraine itself emerges from war, reconstruction and its long struggle to redefine the balance between democracy, security and power.

Written by Andreas Hofer