The article highlights the issues of expediency of the provision on aiding the aggressor State contained in Article 111-2 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine through the prism of analysis of final court decisions made under this Article. The author identifies various forms of aiding the aggressor state, which are grouped and conditionally named "charitable", "whistleblowing", "resource", "currency", "information", "educational", "official", "entrepreneurial" forms of aiding the aggressor state. The analysis of all the identified forms of aiding the aggressor state shows that each of them primarily falls under one of the forms of collaboration. For example, "educational" aiding and abetting the aggressor state is covered by such a form of collaboration as the implementation of the aggressor state's education standards (Article 111-1, paragraph 3), and "whistleblowing" aiding and abetting, if it is effective, when, as a result of providing information, in particular, about law enforcement officers, military personnel of the armed forces of the Russian Federation have committed ill-treatment of such officers, the actions of the citizen of Ukraine who provided the relevant information should be qualified as an accomplice to the violation of the laws and customs of the armed forces. It is stated that in the most general sense, any of the above forms of aiding the aggressor state is covered by such a form of treason (Article 111) as assisting a foreign state, foreign organization or their representatives in conducting subversive activities against Ukraine. The author points out that the qualification is incomplete when the actions of Ukrainian citizens who were appointed to the relevant positions by the occupation administration of the aggressor State are not subject to a separate criminal law assessment. The author proves that such actions should be qualified under parts 2, 5 or 7 of Article 111-1). As a result, the author concludes that the existence of Article 111-2 in the Criminal Code of Ukraine is an example of ill-considered criminal law policy and excessive criminalization. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]