The oligarch Akhmetov gives up his media empire

The oligarch Rinat Akhmetov hands over the licenses of his media empire to the Ukrainian state. Media power in Ukraine is increasingly concentrated – partly in the hands of the Zelensky government.

Rinat Akhmetov got rich mainly through industrial and mining companies. The entry into the media industry followed later. Image from 2012.

Robert Ghement/EPA

Nobody expected the move: earlier this week, Rinat Akhmetov announced that he would give up his media empire. The richest man in Ukraine handed over all TV and print licenses to the state. He is said to have invested a total of more than 1.5 billion dollars in his media business, he owns the television station with the widest coverage in Ukraine.

The pages of his online media have not been updated since Thursday. Akhmetov announced that he decided to take this step involuntarily. He cites the anti-oligarch law passed by Parliament last November as the reason.

According to the law, anyone who meets at least three out of four criteria is counted as an oligarch. These are: political influence, media ownership, monopoly position in a particular industry and assets worth over 70 million euros. Those officially designated as oligarchs are not allowed to finance parties, political advertising or demonstrations, and are excluded from privatizations.

Akhmetov’s withdrawal further restricts competition in the Ukrainian media market. It was not only with this case that the influence of the Zelenski government on the media became apparent.

Ukrainian television: deficit toys for oligarchs

In Ukraine, much of the media is owned by oligarchs. This is especially true of the television stations. The ten with the highest reach have belonged to the same four media conglomerates owned by oligarchs for more than a decade.

Akhmetov owns the Ukraina channel, which has had the highest ratings for years. He is followed closely by the television station 1+1. This is owned by Ihor Kolomoiski, the promoter of Zelenski. Selenski’s career as a comedian and actor began on 1+1, and later the station actively campaigned for him. The private channels are far more popular with the public than the public channel UA:Perschi.

Akhmetov owned Ukraine’s most popular TV channel

Ratings of selected Ukrainian TV channels, in percent

“For the oligarchs, the television stations are one of the most important PR tools they have,” says Mattia Nelles. Until the end of 2020, he was program director for Ukraine at the German think tank “Zentrum Liberale Moderne”.

But since the war, the instrument has lost importance: since then, the television stations have been broadcasting the same program around the clock. Only the “United News” is running. Viewers mainly see Selenski there, the source of the reporting is usually the government. In March, the President signed a decree aimed at uniting all national television channels.

The television business has never been profitable. Last year, Akhmetov cross-subsidised his media holding with the equivalent of over 250 million francs. Since the outbreak of the war, the economically deficient broadcasters have no longer had any political use.

Mattia Nelles therefore assumes that Akhmetov’s departure actually has economic reasons. Because his wealth is fed by industry and mining in eastern Ukraine. Because of the war, he suffered enormous losses, says Nelles: “The anti-oligarch law is just an excuse. Because even after withdrawing from the media business, three of the four criteria could still apply to Akhmetov.”

Selenski’s relationship to press freedom is questionable

Although Akhmetov may have dropped out of the media business for other reasons, the anti-oligarch law remains problematic. The Security and Defense Council headed by Zelenskiy decides who is included in the oligarch register. According to the constitution, this actually has purely coordinating functions. With the vaguely worded law, it is now up to the president to eliminate competitors or spare loyal oligarchs. As early as 2021, Zelensky used the Security Council to block pro-Russian television channels without a court hearing.

It is significant that Zelenski’s sponsor, Kolomoiski, has not yet criticized the law. Zelensky’s predecessor, opposition leader Petro Poroshenko, was forced to sell his TV channels because of the law. Shortly after the war began, Poroshenko’s channels could no longer be received via cable.

Even before the invasion of Russia in February, the Ukrainian president had maintained at least a questionable relationship with the media. In January, the English-language newspaper «Kyiv Independent» a list of alleged interventions by the Zelenskiy government in the freedom of the press.

The case of the now discontinued newspaper “Kyiv Post” stands out. After critical reporting, the Attorney General appointed by Selenski twice threatened the newspaper with a lawsuit and is said to have persuaded the extremely wealthy owner to sell the newspaper and fire the employees.

Akhmetov was also threatened with criminal charges by the public prosecutor after his television stations repeatedly criticized the anti-oligarch law. Zelensky himself accused Akhmetov of plotting a coup d’etat, which proved false.

What will happen to Akhmetov’s media empire now?

It is still unclear what will become of Akhmetov’s media empire. The licenses are state-owned and it remains to be seen whether these will be re-issued or the associated broadcasters will be discontinued. The 4000 employees of his media companies also face an uncertain future.

“I think it’s likely that the licenses will expire or be partially bought up. But that doesn’t mean much. Because the viewers tune in because of the television station that is behind the license. If it no longer exists, the license will not help either,” says Mattia Nelles.

However, one thing is clear: the already concentrated television market in Ukraine is now controlled by even fewer men. Before the war, Nelles says, there was still a pluralism among the oligarchs on Ukrainian television. With Akhmetov’s retirement, the television landscape has become less diverse.

When it comes to the strong state control over the media during wartime, Nelles is cautiously optimistic. Outside of television, the Ukrainian media landscape is still comparatively free, and before the start of the war, Ukrainian media were very pluralistic.

“The Ukrainians would not put up with state control over the media,” says Nelles. “You know that this war is also about asserting your freedom of expression.”

source site-111