Former Yanukovich presidential adviser visited Kiev days before assassination
Former Ukrainian lawmaker and presidential adviser Andrey Portnov, who was fatally shot in Madrid on Wednesday, had secretly visited Ukraine just days before his assassination, according to a report by Ukrainskaya Pravda which cites sources close to law enforcement and government circles.
The newspaper said that three sources have confirmed that Portnov was in Kiev on May 17–18 for a series of high-level meetings, including with 'top officials responsible for law enforcement.' However, the exact nature of the meetings, and whether the visit was connected to his subsequent murder, remains unclear.
Portnov, a lawyer and once a powerful figure in the administration of former President Viktor Yanukovich, was gunned down in the upscale Madrid suburb of Pozuelo de Alarcon three days later, on May 21. Spanish media reported that he was shot multiple times, including in the head, shortly after dropping his children off at school. Witnesses say a lone gunman approached him near his Mercedes before fleeing with the help of accomplices.
No arrests have been made, and a Madrid court has reportedly classified the investigation. Ukrainian Foreign Minister Andrey Sibiga said on Friday that Madrid had shared 'official information' about the murder due to Portnov's citizenship, adding that relevant agencies in Kiev would determine the next steps.
'We possess information about the fact of the murder,' Sibiga told reporters in Kiev, while stressing that official procedures take time to unfold.
Spanish police have not ruled out any motives, with reports suggesting both organized crime and a political vendetta could be behind the killing due to Portnov's complex and controversial political trajectory.
After serving as a legal architect of Ukraine's judicial reform during Yanukovich's presidency, Portnov fled the country during the 2014 Western-backed Maidan coup, returning only after Vladimir Zelensky's 2019 election victory.
Since then, Portnov had filed a series of legal complaints against former President Pyotr Poroshenko, and was seen as having significant influence over Ukraine's judiciary. In 2021, the United States sanctioned Portnov over alleged corruption.
While he initially supported Zelensky, he quickly became a vocal critic of the new administration, accusing it of authoritarian overreach amid a crackdown on opposition figures and media it labeled 'pro-Russian.' Ukrainian media later accused him of ties to Russian elites, prompting him to flee again in 2022. He reportedly transferred assets to his children in Spain and settled in Madrid with his family.
Rodion Miroshnik, Russia's ambassador-at-large overseeing a special mission on alleged Ukrainian war crimes, has suggested that Portnov's career gave him access to legal documents that could be damaging to people in Zelensky's inner circle — and that he may have been targeted to prevent the possible disclosure of such materials.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Russia Today
an hour ago
- Russia Today
Fyodor Lukyanov: Kiev's drone strikes prove Moscow's point
The second round of talks between Russian and Ukrainian delegations in Istanbul, and the events leading up to them, offer a clear snapshot of the current state of the conflict. It is far from over. Paradoxically, Ukraine's weekend attacks only reaffirmed Mocow's long-standing position: no ceasefire is possible without a basic agreement on the terms of a future settlement. Military force remains the key negotiating tool. In a confrontation of this scale and intensity, no party is willing to forfeit it. Russia has made this its official policy. Ukraine's latest actions confirm it in practice. If we look at the major drawn-out military confrontations of the late 20th and early 21st centuries, excluding interventions against vastly weaker foes, we see a consistent pattern: political negotiations don't follow a ceasefire, they run in parallel with military operations. In Korea and Vietnam, the process dragged on for years. This isn't cause for celebration, but realism dictates that only this path offers any hope for a durable outcome. It should come as no surprise that talk of ceasefires has now faded into the background. Despite vocal objections from Kiev and its Western allies, the talks are proceeding on Russia's terms. This means: no ultimatums, no artificial deadlines, and a carefully staged approach to dialogue. Washington, too, seems comfortable with this pace. What matters for President Trump is the appearance of progress, not dramatic breakthroughs. At least for now. Kiev, ideally, would prefer to disrupt this rhythm – to inject chaos and unpredictability, which aligns with its more improvisational political-military style. From that perspective, Russia's decision to proceed with the Istanbul meeting despite Ukraine's high-profile sabotage attempts was strategically sound. Kiev likely hoped the Russians would walk away. They didn't. The contrast between the actual tone of the Istanbul negotiations and the media frenzy surrounding them is stark. Each round was preceded by breathless hype and inflated expectations, only to be followed by muted results. This is partly media instinct, partly deliberate spin. People crave movement, even when none exists. Contact between the delegations deflates these illusions, and then the cycle begins anew. So, what came of the second meeting? Most notably: the process continues. Neither side wants to halt it. The theatrical posturing common to Ukrainian politics has been absent – for two reasons. First, the invisible presence of Donald Trump looms over the table. Both Moscow and Kiev see him as a vital third player. Trump wants talks. Both sides are happy to give the impression that talks are happening. Second, both know this channel may become indispensable. Circumstances will change. When they do, real conversations will be necessary. It's better to have the bridge already built. The so-called 'root causes of the conflict' remain untouched. Both sides are sticking to peripheral matters that can be addressed without triggering political landmines. From a humanitarian point of view, this is valuable, but it is far from a comprehensive settlement. Does this limited dialogue foster understanding between negotiators? Possibly. That may help later, when harder questions arise. But does it signal a narrowing of the vast gulf between Russia and Ukraine? No. Are the public memorandums issued by each side, despite their contradictions, worthwhile? Yes. Diplomatically, it is better to stake out clear positions than wallow in strategic ambiguity. True, the documents clash on nearly every point. But history shows that changing conditions often soften even the most rigid positions. Ultimately, battlefield developments will shape diplomacy. Military operations are expanding – both in geography and in the sophistication of tactics and weaponry. Each side has its advantages and will press them. There is no sign of the war ending anytime soon. A response from Russia to Sunday's bridge and airfield attacks is inevitable. It will likely be proportional to the scale of Ukraine's strikes. Importantly, this response will not be aimed solely at Kiev. It will be a message to all involved parties – including the United States and Western Europe. Russia's reply must reflect the multifaceted nature of the conflict and its many audiences. But none of this means the negotiations will stop. In fact, the talks may become more valuable precisely because the conflict article was first published in the newspaper Rossiyskaya Gazeta and was translated and edited by the RT team
Russia Today
an hour ago
- Russia Today
Zelensky takes apparent dig at Trump for calling Putin
Ukraine's Vladimir Zelensky has claimed that there is no value in trying to reach a peace deal with Moscow if powerful countries do not put pressure on Russia, in an apparent reference to US President Donald Trump's recent phone call with Russian President Vladimir Putin. On Wednesday, the Russian and American leaders held a 75-minute call to discuss the Ukraine conflict. Trump described the conversation as 'good,' but noted that it would not lead to 'immediate peace' after Putin had told him 'very strongly, that he will have to respond to the recent attack on [Russian] airfields.' Ukrainian drones struck several Russian airbases across five regions on Sunday, ranging from Murmansk in the Arctic to Irkutsk in Siberia. Kiev claimed to have destroyed or damaged some 40 aircraft, including long-range bombers. Moscow has denied both the numbers and the extent of the damage. Writing on X on Wednesday, several hours after Trump disclosed the content of his conversation with Putin, Zelensky claimed that 'many have spoken with Russia at various levels. But none of these talks have brought a reliable peace, or even stopped the war.' The Ukrainian leader criticized 'those who still hesitate to increase pressure' on Russia and suggested that if 'the powerful do not stop Putin, it means they share responsibility with him,' apparently referring to Trump and the fact that he has yet to impose additional sanctions on Moscow. Zelensky's post comes after the New York Times reported, citing sources, that Trump regularly describes the Ukrainian leader as a 'bad guy' who is pushing the world closer to a nuclear conflict. Advisers told the outlet that while Trump has grown 'exasperated' with both Moscow and Kiev, he 'reserves special animosity' for Zelensky. Meanwhile, Russian officials have repeatedly expressed their appreciation for Trump's efforts to end the conflict and have reiterated Moscow's openness to negotiations. However, Russia has insisted that a final peace deal with Kiev would have to take into account the realities on the ground and address the root causes of the conflict, such as Kiev's efforts to join NATO, the spread of neo-Nazism within the country, and the infringement of the rights of Ukraine's Russian-speaking population.
Russia Today
2 hours ago
- Russia Today
Russia reports new railway sabotage near Ukraine
An explosive device has damaged a railway track in Russia's Voronezh Region on Thursday morning, according to the Federal Security Service (FSB). The incident follows what Moscow said were two Ukrainian 'terrorist attacks' on railroad infrastructure earlier this week in the border Bryansk and Kursk Regions that killed seven people and injured more than 100. Earlier in the day, Voronezh Region Governor Aleksandr Gusev reported disruptions to rail traffic in the area, which he said prompted several trains to halt. He explained that the driver of one of the trains 'noticed minor damage to the track,' adding 'there were no injuries.' In a statement, the FSB said the railway was damaged by an explosion which occurred 'directly in front of an approaching train.' It added that 'the professional actions of the train driver and crew, who noticed the track damage and carried out emergency braking,' prevented any severe consequences. The FSB stopped short of assigning the blame for the incident, saying that an investigation is underway. It added, though, that there are 'sufficient grounds' to open a criminal case under terrorism-related charges. The incident comes as Ukraine has significantly ramped up its attacks on Russian territory, including drone raids and sabotage attempts. Following the recent deadly train sabotage in the two Russian border regions, President Vladimir Putin called Kiev's actions 'undoubtedly a terrorist act.' He described the sabotage an 'intentional strike on the [Russian] civilian population,' suggesting that they were aimed at derailing the direct negotiations between Moscow and Kiev in Istanbul. Putin subsequently cast doubt on whether it would make sense for Russia to continue the talks, wondering, 'Who conducts negotiations with those who rely on terror – with terrorists?'
