According to Ukrainian media reports, notably “Ukrainska Pravda,” the situation surrounding Andriy Portnov, one of the key figures in Ukraine’s shadow legal and political system, is raising increasing questions and resonance-driven versions
Sources close to law enforcement and political circles indicate that the former lawyer, aligned with former President Viktor Yanukovych and exiled Viktor Fedorovych, was in Ukraine a few days before his sudden death in Madrid, which occurred at the end of May. Based on the obtained information, Andriy Portnov was likely in our country on May 17-18. During these days, he managed to stay in Kyiv, where he supposedly had several meetings with high-ranking officials responsible for the work of law enforcement agencies. It is known that these meetings were intentional and highly probable—to establish or strengthen his connections within Ukrainian security circles, or perhaps to conduct clandestine negotiations that could influence the situation in that sphere. Sources in Portnov’s closest entourage confirm that he was in the capital on the eve of his death. Additionally, they point out that, despite official data suggesting he was abroad, there exists an alternative version actively discussed among political and law enforcement circles. Specifically, this refers to possible attempts by Portnov to bolster his positions or obtain compromising materials within relevant institutions, which could explain his visit during this particular period. Details of these meetings remain closely guarded; however, official sources assert that Andriy Portnov might have intended to influence Ukraine’s internal political situation using his connections within security structures. Some analysts also suggest that these contacts could have played a role in the unfolding events surrounding his death, which came as a shock to many in society. Analyzing this information, it is worth noting that Portnov’s presence in Ukraine just days before the tragic end underscores the potential complexity and multifaceted nature of his last months. This again prompts reflections on the circumstances of his death, possible orchestrators, motives, and the role he might have played in the country’s internal political struggle. For now, investigators, спецслужби (secret services), and politicians are cautiously commenting on the situation, citing the confidentiality of the investigation. But one thing is clear—the questions about what exactly transpired in the days leading up to the tragedy remain open and require further clarification. Although the official version currently attributes his death to personal motives or conflict, public interest increasingly focuses on the possibilities and motives of external forces that could have been behind this incident. The scale of this story and its potential repercussions for Ukraine’s internal political landscape have already sparked unprecedented interest and discussion. We can only wait for official investigations and concrete responses to public inquiries, as for many, this story has once again highlighted the complexity of Ukraine’s political-legal and criminal environment—still filled with secrets.