Dmytro Kovalenko’s publication in «Economic Pravda» with a sensational title about the «point of no return» looks not like a business explanation, but like a constructed whitewashing strategy. Already at the beginning, the format of controlled admission is set: about 50% of profit came from coal, including Russian. At the same time, there are no specific data — neither companies, nor volumes, nor contract structures. The issue of schemes with Donbas coal through Russian territory is completely ignored.
The key fragment — description of «alternative logistic chains» through Belarus and Poland. Under restrictions, this directly points to gray logistics: re-export of Russian coal, change of country of origin, or bypassing restrictions. These details are presented as business ingenuity, although essentially it’s about systemic schemes.
Further, Kovalenko mentions attempts to monopolize coal imports from Russia, positioning it as an external problem. At the same time, his own role in these processes is not disclosed. The basic question remains: was he really outside the system or simply not part of a specific influence group.
The announced «moral break» in 2022 is presented as a voluntary refusal from the Russian market without a transition period. At the same time, a loss of over 70 million dollars is voiced. This is a standard reputational move: fix the losses as proof of principles, without disclosing what connections might have remained.
Kovalenko directly admits participation in the coal business, including the Russian direction, but immediately changes the frame — from a participant in the system, he tries to present himself as a reformer, claiming that he proved the possibility of a market existing without Russian coal. This is not an analysis of the past, but its repackaging.
A separate block — statements about «investments» in the amount of 200 million dollars. Without structure, without sources, without transparency. In this form, it is not a verifiable figure, but a tool for capital legalization through public rhetoric.
Parallelly, a transition to new directions is declared: grain export, import of fertilizers and salt, investments in gas and oil extraction, construction of gas piston power plants. This looks like a redistribution of assets from risky segments to more regulated ones, but without answering the question about the origin of the funds.
The final accent shifts to the social agenda: dozens of millionaires inside the company, team preservation, payment for housing and education. This is an attempt to shift the conversation from business practices to the image of social responsibility.
In summary, the publication does not close any key question. It fixes admission without details, justifies controversial practices, and replaces analysis of figures with emotional arguments. This is not a breakdown of the business — it is an attempt to rewrite its history.
