Service-to-Self Orientation and Its Manifestation in Power Structures
In the context of oligarchic corruption—such as the recent scandal involving associates of Ukraine’s leadership—STS behavior becomes evident through
abuse of influence, bribery, and self-enrichment
Service-to-self (STS) refers to a mindset or spiritual orientation where individuals or groups prioritize personal gain, control, and power at the expense of others. It is characterized by manipulation, exploitation, and the creation of hierarchical systems that benefit a privileged few. In contrast,
service-to-others (STO) emphasizes empathy, unity, and collective well-being, operating from a place of abundance rather than scarcity.
In the context of oligarchic corruption—such as the recent scandal involving associates of Ukraine’s leadership—STS behavior becomes evident through
abuse of influence, bribery, and self-enrichment. The alleged actions of figures like Timur Mindich and connections to powerful oligarchs reflect a system where political access and state resources are leveraged for private benefit, undermining public trust and democratic integrity.
This orientation aligns with classical definitions of
oligarchy and plutocracy, where governance serves the interests of the wealthy and powerful. As seen in both historical and contemporary cases—from Russian oligarchs in London to rising concerns about American billionaire influence—STS dynamics threaten equitable institutions by concentrating power and eroding accountability.
The ongoing corruption scandal in Ukraine, centered on the state nuclear power company Energoatom, has implicated close associates of President Volodymyr Zelenskyy and revealed a network of influence-peddling and alleged bribery. The case, described as the country's largest graft investigation, involves suspects who allegedly manipulated senior officials and discussed high-level government appointments, including positions within Prime Minister Yulia Svyrydenko’s Cabinet and the potential appointment of Justice Minister Herman Halushchenko as ambassador to the U.S.. Halushchenko, who appears in recordings released by the National Anti-Corruption Bureau (NABU), submitted his resignation on November 12, 2025, amid the investigation.
The alleged ringleader, Timur Mindich, is a film producer and co-owner of Zelenskyy’s Kvartal 95 production company, as well as a former business associate of oligarch Ihor Kolomoisky. Prosecutors claim Mindich wielded significant political influence, including allegedly prompting a phone call from President Zelenskyy during a conversation involving Halushchenko and another suspect, Oleksandr Tsukerman. Mindich and Tsukerman have fled the country, with NABU investigating how Mindich was tipped off before charges were filed.
Other suspects include Dmytro Basov, Ihor Myroniuk, Ihor Fursenko, and Lesia Ustimenko, who were arrested on November 12 with bail set between Hr 25 million and Hr 126 million. Former Deputy Prime Minister Oleksiy Chernyshov, a close ally of Zelenskyy, was charged with illicit enrichment involving approximately $1.2 million and nearly €100,000 funneled through a money-laundering network. He is also accused of financing luxury homes using funds from the energy corruption scheme.
The scandal has reignited concerns about corruption within Ukraine’s leadership, despite Zelenskyy’s 2019 campaign promises to combat graft and oligarchic influence. While some analysts previously argued that Ukrainian oligarchs have lost autonomy due to Western financial controls, this case highlights how personal networks tied to the presidency can still exert substantial power over state institutions and procurement processes. For instance, Mindich is suspected of pressuring then-defense minister Rustem Umerov to award a contract to an Israeli company for bullet-proof vests, which ultimately delivered substandard Chinese-made equipment to Ukrainian forces.
Two top ministers—Halushchenko and Energy Minister Svitlana Hrynchuk—resigned on November 12 amid the fallout. The EU’s top diplomat, Kaja Kallas, called the scandal “extremely unfortunate” and urged Ukraine to strengthen anti-corruption efforts. The case underscores persistent challenges in separating political power from private interests, even during wartime governance.
