Pro-government deputies say that the discussion between the incumbent party and the opposition continues despite all wartime restrictions. Representatives of "European Solidarity" assure that they are not heard at all, and the government is building a "dictatorship." The regulation of "Telegram" and other social networks remains an incredibly problematic issue on the borderline of freedom and responsibility due to Russian propaganda and recruitment. 
spoke with Yaroslav Yurсhyshyn, Head of the Committee on Freedom of Speech, a deputy of the "Holos" faction, about the challenges of parliamentary accountability, threats to freedom of speech, the role of journalists, and the balance of power under martial law.
What is happening in the Verkhovna Rada
We hear diametrically opposed opinions about the work of the parliament from representatives of "SN" (Servant of the People) and "ES" (European Solidarity). In your opinion, does a dialogue currently exist in parliament?
It does. The question here is the quality of the dialogue and how much they listen. Let's say, if public positions are not present in this dialogue, then it will most likely be ineffective. A trivial example of "ES's" lack of complete honesty: the vote on the mineral agreement with the USA. "ES" deputies said that they achieved the ratification rewrite. What is the result of this? That the dialogue took place, you were heard, and it was indeed rewritten.
At the same time, it is clear that this would not have happened if the opposition, not just "European Solidarity" (which tends to take all the credit), had not publicly disclosed all the risks involved and achieved a public discussion that included not only politicians. Parliament, in fact, as the most open and representative body, is not about discussion purely within it. Parliamentary discussion is about the competition of positions. But since our people consciously chose a monomajority, the parliamentary discussion has narrowed. However, the Ukrainian parliament benefits from the fact that the monomajority is not so mono and not such a majority. Therefore, no matter how much "Servants" would not want it, they listen to "ES."
A frequent complaint is also the lack of parliamentary subjectivity. It is clear that with the domination of "Servants," this is hardly possible, but what steps can be taken here?
I find it lacking when the parliament takes a position that does not contradict, but perhaps even complements, the position of the executive branch. For example, when the parliament comes up with its vision of an agreement, after a public discussion involving society and media, and not just the parliament. Parliament in all countries is one of the least liked branches of government. Why? Because it is open. And here lies a big problem.
In Ukraine, since the beginning of the full-scale invasion, the parliament has been more closed than before. People have started to understand less what is happening in parliament. They only hear extreme positions; the majority says everything is fine, what are the problems. The alternative position is horror, parliamentarism is destroyed, it's all dictatorship and so on, and people cannot truly evaluate because they don't see what is happening inside the parliament.
Restoring broadcasts of Verkhovna Rada sessions will improve its work
Before my appointment as head of the committee on freedom of speech, there were no journalists in parliament at all. They, unlike deputies who conduct live online broadcasts, while telling only their own position, cannot immediately provide information on what is happening in parliament; they still do not show online sessions. This, in my opinion, is a double standard.
That is, politicians do not pose a threat to national security, but journalists who adhere to all restrictions somehow do (one of the typical excuses why journalists cannot conduct online broadcasts of the VRU's work – ). Therefore, the current task is to achieve the return of online broadcasts to the "Rada" channel, which should specifically present the parliament's position, and not broadcast news, although the parliament invests a huge amount of money from its budget into it (UAH 101 million for functioning and production of TV programs in 2025 – ). Why?
A very sad fact here is that Bill No. 11321, on the openness of Verkhovna Rada committees' work (posting recordings of their work within 24 hours – ), has not been signed by the President for more than three months already. The problem is that the government is comfortable when there is less room for criticism of mistakes for the purpose of correcting them. That is, it's a comfortable bath. But a comfortable bath during a war only leads to a situation where when the tiles start to crumble from missile strikes, there will be nowhere to hide in the bath.
Are deputies ready to vote for the return of broadcasts in theory?
Do they want to – no, will they vote – yes. Such is the specificity of public work. Because society has a formed demand for this. The main thing is for the bill to somehow get to the vote itself. We, as representatives of society, in very limited cases can go against the grain, because it simply leads to political death. No one will vote for those political leaders who explicitly say: no, we are against people seeing us, we are afraid that the enemy will learn some secrets. Although, please, look at the "Telegram" of my colleagues Yaroslav Zhelezniak or Oleksiy Honcharenko and learn all the "pioneer secrets."
Virtually all opposition members emphasise the need to return broadcasts to the Verkhovna Rada. The main argument is that it will keep parliamentarians in good shape. Photo: Verkhovna Rada
Why there is less freedom in the country
We have "ES" deputies who directly accuse the government of wanting to build a dictatorship in Ukraine. What do you think about this?
The government always strives for centralization. The most sincere people are convinced that they are doing good, and for this, efforts must be consolidated. I recall that at one time Franklin Delano Roosevelt tried to reform the US Supreme Court, to put additional young judges there who would "feel society" to help with his social reforms. But polls then clearly showed "we are against." The problem is that society currently has limited opportunities to say: we are against these things.
However, there is a possibility of resistance. When society pushes back – a step back and everything works. The problem with such a "kick-start" democracy is that there are many challenges and you cannot act on all of them, but the government is afraid. The government reverses many negative tendencies. At the same time, involving the public in the decision-making process is an unconditional requirement of the European community. In the EU, there is a principle that no issue can be resolved without involving interested parties.
I am almost certain that any dictatorship, except the Russian one, is impossible in our country. We have built a system of checks and balances, albeit ineffective, at times corrupt, even "crippled." God forbid something happens, society will resist.
The problem is that now we do not have the luxury of acting by our standard methods. There will be no Maidan-3, no matter how much Russia dreams of it, because society first thinks about survival, and then about changing the paradigm.
I understand some want to declare themselves the most active anti-Zelenskyy. But don't overplay it. Because what Oleksiy Honcharenko does at times is a banal promotion of Russian narratives. Two questions arise. You are either a useful idiot or an agent. In both cases, this is not the kind of politician that should be in a country that is at war with a much more powerful enemy.
Why Volodymyr Zelenskyy did not become the leader of a free country
The main complaint against the president is that he has locked himself into a few ‘effective managers’ and hardly listens to alternative voices. Photo: Office of the President
The President of Ukraine constantly emphasizes on the international arena that our war is about the struggle of dictatorship against freedom. This narrative is quite effective. But why, instead of building a freer country economically and socially, do we see such a tightening of the screws from the Office of the President?
It's about culture. That is, in order to be able to play as a partner, you must have a significantly higher culture and trust in those with whom you are playing. Unfortunately, the Ukrainian government fears society. It fears that society will change its sympathies and elect someone else, meaning to lose power. It's easy to talk about the confrontation between democracy and totalitarianism, freedom and slavery, because that's really how it is. When we talk about power, as soon as there is an opportunity to limit something somewhere, the government will do it if there is no public control.
For example, the government relaxed control at the beginning of the full-scale invasion, when the Territorial Defense Forces (TFO) were introduced with the effect of self-initiative from below, which had never happened before and is unlikely to be allowed after in the Armed Forces of Ukraine (AFU). Effectively a people's army.
This is when maximum relief was given to the volunteer movement at the beginning, and then they slowly started to tighten the screws, because it was clear that "we are not controlling this." The question here is that there is positioning, and there are values by which you live. And if values correspond to positioning, you don't have to pretend, to play. Unfortunately, quite often the Ukrainian government plays. Not because it tries so hard to hide something or is deceitful. It's easier to control than to explain, communicate, and involve others on your side. Because it always means criticism, a different position.
In fact, Volodymyr Zelenskyy himself has changed significantly after the full-scale invasion; there are certain elements of meeting with the public, business, a proactive position on the international arena. That is, we are growing as a state and our government is growing, but there is a huge call to society – keep the government in check. Not just the majority government, but the opposition too. It is also important not to become enchanted, so as not to be disappointed later.
What is happening with freedom of speech in Ukraine
V-dem Freedom of Expression Index as of 2024
In the V-Dem ranking for freedom of speech, we are far from ideal and are significantly lower than Hungary, for example. The indicators from "Reporters Without Borders" are also unfavorable: a partial decline in 2025. What influences this?
First, the general level of freedom of speech in the world decreased last year. The intensity of wars a priori affects the level of freedom of speech. Also, the activation of the main enemy of freedom of speech – propaganda.
Currently and going forward, the greatest enemy of freedom of speech and media activity in Ukraine remains Russian aggression. In fact, about 30 civilian journalists are still held hostage by Russia. In September 2024, Viktoria Roshchyna was killed. At the same time, there are threats that we can influence, but the state is not actively working on them. After USAID's exit, Ukrainian media faced a significant problem with resources, primarily not national, but niche and regional media.4 According to the Institute of Mass Information, over 70% were significantly affected. A small number are considering closing down or suspending operations.
The Ministry of Culture is looking for mechanisms to support regional media, but in reality, these are not comparable activities. And if there is no stability in the media, we will either see an increase in "jeansa" (hidden advertising/paid content) or media falling under the influence of various financial groups in the regions, which is actually quite easy to do now.
At the same time, at least UAH 738 million was allocated for the financing of the "United News Marathon" in 2025.
Representatives of the "United News Marathon" channels, which showed good coverage before its creation, for example, Starlight Media, 1+1, openly say: "we are ready to lend a hand to the state, but it feels like no one needs it." When was the last time you saw the Prime Minister on the "Marathon"? Perhaps these funds could indeed be used more effectively? Again, even for these "Marathon" channels, if production were ordered on a competitive basis.
At the same time, if we analyze the two mentioned ratings, Ukraine shows stability in terms of freedom of speech uncharacteristic for a country in a state of war. If we look at countries like Israel, we see a decline. I am sure we will see a decline in India and Pakistan, because elements of military censorship have already been introduced, which we de facto almost did not have. In this case, without complacency, we still have a lot to do.
Why media moved to the state
Even considering the adoption of the anti-oligarchic law, most Ukrainian TV channels remained oligarchic and continue to participate in the national TV marathon. Why do the owners of these media calmly accept the fact that their channels have practically lost their independence within the framework of a single broadcast?
The full-scale invasion destroyed the advertising market and also postponed elections. Oligarchs invested in television because it allowed them to influence elections. Now it is unclear when elections will be held, and mechanisms of much more effective influence – social networks – have appeared. Television is becoming less in demand, but it will still have an influence, so in our country, oligarchs have been smoothly replaced by the state, which is also very negative. The "United News Marathon" is effectively state television, pro-government. There are no opposition politicians and experts there because the state dislikes being criticized.
Also, if we analyze the budgets, even the most successful TV channels needed subsidies, meaning they were unprofitable. Here the state appears and says: look, well, we cannot give you 10 hryvnias, but we will give you one, on the condition that you will work for us and for us. The oligarchs agreed, got a crutch, and it hobbles along. The government is currently communicating that this will last until the end of the war. Okay, so until the end of the war, we will not have elections. The war ends, the "United News Marathon" disperses. Who picks up the channel? The same friends, oligarchs. But they already enter as respected investors. And editorial policy is determined by the editors. And, again, it will be extremely difficult to hold them accountable for anything.
What is the fate of "Telegram" and "TikTok" in Ukraine
You often talk about "TikTok" and "Telegram." Their danger is clear. But do you still advocate for a ban as such, or is there already a more nuanced position?
For example, in Norway, social networks are completely banned for children under 13. We perceive freedom in a negative sense, that is, any restriction is an infringement on our rights, even if it is a speed limit designed to protect us. Therefore, it is unlikely that we will have it like in Scandinavia. Although Scandinavians have a different approach. If these restrictions are logical, they accept them.
The optimal option for us: we convince Europeans to improve the Digital Service Act, that is, the mechanism of interaction between the European Union and social networks, and to include us there. Because even if we now adapt everything that Europe has adopted regarding social networks, "TikTok" and "Telegram" will ignore our claims because we are not a large EU market. With the participation of the EU, we could establish a status quo where we can act.
At the same time, of course, "Telegram" can be an effective mechanism, for example, for collecting donations. In many countries, special regulators have been created. But imagine if we now propose to create another regulator during the war? At the same time, these social networks now pose a much greater threat than any other channels, and something needs to be done about this.
I have never called for "Telegram" to be shut down. But the terrorist acts of Russians, which they carry out through this network, cannot be covered up. However, even this does not convince the government to impose sanctions. At least limit access, again, for teenagers with a lower level of critical thinking. Therefore, Mykyta Poturaiev, head of the VRU Committee on Humanitarian and Information Policy, and I are trying to convince Europeans that this also concerns them.
Read also
Favbet Foundation in 2025: Andrii Matiukha on the foundation’s work and systemic charity
Andrii Matyukha Foundation and Good Donations: The Thompson system introduced at "Ohmatdyt"
Andrii Matiukha supported the initiative to help families of those killed in Kryvyi Rih
Favbet Foundation: how Andrii Matiukha’s initiatives are changing access to sports for children
