In this interview, Ruslan Kravchenko, former Prosecutor General of Ukraine, discusses his relationship with Kyiv, the reported detention of Ukrainian journalist Mykhailo Tkach and his colleague in Austria, and his allegations concerning the possible involvement of Ukrainian military intelligence and anti-corruption agencies in surveillance operations in Vienna.
The allegations and assessments presented in this interview reflect Mr. Kravchenko’s personal views. The editorial team reserves the right to seek comment from Mr. Tkach regarding the allegations and statements made in this interview and to publish his response should he choose to provide one.
What are your relations with Kyiv, Mr. Kravchenko?
First and foremost, my legal status needs to be clarified. I am not a suspect in any criminal case in Ukraine. Ukrainian law enforcement authorities have not placed me on any wanted list. The only country that has done so is the Russian Federation.
What do you know about the detention of Ukrainian journalists Mykhailo Tkach and his colleague?
As far as Mykhailo Tkach is concerned, it is my personal opinion that his activities extend beyond journalism. Moreover, as I have already stated, I believe that journalism may be far from his primary role. I believe he cooperates as an agent with the National Anti-Corruption Bureau of Ukraine (NABU) and the Specialized Anti-Corruption Prosecutor’s Office (SAPO).
He regularly appears at the scenes of NABU investigative actions, including those involving people close to the president. This has happened at night as well, including during nighttime searches at the Office of the Prosecutor General. He explains these coincidences as random. I, however, have serious doubts about those explanations. NABU uses him to disseminate confidential information from criminal proceedings.
My main concerns, however, relate to Tkach’s possible contacts outside the anti-corruption agencies. There was an assassination attempt against a Ukrainian businessman in Monaco. According to the materials known to me, Tkach was there during the same period as officers of the Main Directorate of Intelligence of Ukraine’s Ministry of Defence (HUR), who were subsequently detained and gave statements. I am familiar with this case and have personally read those statements. My questions about Tkach’s role are therefore based on more than just media reports. I believe this sequence of events gives me grounds to suspect that Tkach’s activities may be used to establish the whereabouts of individuals of interest to Ukrainian intelligence services.
I believe the possible mechanism works as follows: under the pretext of an editorial assignment, a journalist establishes a person’s address, movements and social circle. Intelligence officers may then use that information. This allows them to reduce their own involvement in surveillance and lower the risk of attracting the attention of law enforcement authorities in another country. I consider it possible that such activities were carried out at the direction of the leadership of the anti-corruption agencies. Let me emphasise that this is my theory, based on the totality of the circumstances known to me.
I learned from media reports that Mykhailo Tkach had travelled to Vienna to “keep on my heels.” I personally have no information about the purpose of his visit. Nor do I have information about the circumstances of his detention and subsequent release. I do not believe that the mere intention to follow me could, in itself, have constituted grounds for detention. However, I will not speculate about the specific reasons. These questions should be addressed to the competent Austrian authorities, which are in a position to provide an official response.
Who, according to your information, is behind the group of Ukrainian servicemen detained in Austria? Can you confirm their links to HUR? And could the head of the Presidential Office, who previously led this agency, be involved in what happened?
According to the information available to me, two of those detained are servicemen from the Artan unit, which is part of HUR. They attempted to establish my whereabouts and monitored my lawyers. According to my information, the unit’s responsibilities include conducting special operations outside Ukraine. Its commander is Viktor Torkotiuk. Based on the information I have, he personally directed the operation, arrived with the group and was present in Vienna.
I also have information suggesting that he was accompanied by a senior official from Ukraine’s highest levels of government. However, this has not yet been officially confirmed, so I will not name the individual.
According to my information, Torkotiuk is being considered as a candidate for the position of head of HUR. The appointment to this post is made by decree of the President of Ukraine. I believe that one of the conditions set for his appointment was that he kidnap me and bring me to Ukraine.
Based on my professional experience and my understanding of how the system operates, I consider it extremely unlikely that an operation of this scale could have been prepared without the approval of senior leadership, including officials at the Presidential Office. This is my assessment of the possible chain of decision-making. I am continuing to gather information about the role of specific officials.
I find it difficult to believe that the president was aware of the preparations for such an operation. However, he must now establish who organised it, who authorised it and what tasks were assigned to those carrying it out.
When I served as Prosecutor General, operational services provided me with information suggesting that Torkotiuk and his unit might have been involved in crimes both in Ukraine and abroad, including the murder of a businessman in Cyprus. These materials also contained information about Torkotiuk’s alleged links to Ukrainian and international organised crime figures. According to my information, he had repeatedly come to the attention of Austrian law enforcement authorities.
In light of this information, I consider the threat to my life and personal safety to be real and extremely serious.
Why do you speak of a possible connection between the leadership of NABU and SAPO and the activities of HUR?
After I signed a notice of suspicion against the director of NABU, having, in my assessment, sufficient evidence to support it, the heads of the anti-corruption agencies, according to information available to me, demanded that the president and the head of his Office arrange for my immediate forced return to Ukraine. The language allegedly used went as far as “with a bag over his head.”
Furthermore, according to my information, the head of the Presidential Office appears in NABU recordings related to his former deputy, Iryna Mudra. I suspect that the information contained in those recordings may be used to exert pressure on him, either through the threat of publication or through the further course of criminal proceedings. I therefore cannot rule out the possibility that the operation to surveil Ukrainian citizens in Vienna was conducted under his direct coordination.
Finally, according to information I have received personally, one of those detained in Austria and linked to HUR is a NABU employee who was seconded to the intelligence service in 2025. If this information is confirmed, it would be a significant factor in examining the alleged connection between the two agencies.
For me, this is not merely a matter of personal safety and protecting my family. I am actively working to identify those who attempted to harm us and silence me. I have the professional experience, the necessary resources and the information at my disposal to pursue this effort.
