The National Anti-Corruption Bureau (NABU) and Specialized Anti-Corruption Prosecutor’s Office (SAPO) delivered record results in the first half of 2025: 370 new investigations, 115 suspects charged, and 62 convictions — wartime performance that exceeded even their substantial late-2024 numbers. This week, they announced charges against a senior Defense Ministry official accused of soliciting $1.3 million in bribes to rig military housing contracts.

Yet simultaneously, a parliamentary commission has begun examining their work, a timing that raises questions about the government’s true intentions.

The question isn’t whether NABU and SAPO can function — they clearly can — but whether they can work undisturbed when the same political forces that tried to subordinate them in July remain in power, wielding the same administrative tools that could disrupt sensitive investigations.

July’s warning shot

The agencies formally regained their independence on 31 July after mass protests forced parliament to reverse controversial Law 12414. But the nine-day subordination to the Prosecutor General wasn’t an isolated misstep — it was the culmination of pressure that had been building since NABU charged former Deputy Prime Minister Oleksiy Chernyshov, a member of President Volodymyr Zelenskyy’s inner circle.

What made July different wasn’t just the attempt to strip institutional independence. It was how quickly UAH 120 million ($2.9 million) appeared for Chernyshov’s bail, and how rapidly 70 raids materialized against NABU officials when the agencies refused to back down.

The speed of that bailout also raised uncomfortable questions in Brussels, where officials watching Ukraine’s EU accession bid wondered how deep corruption networks run.

Since then, nothing fundamental has changed.

The same officials who designed Law 12414 remain in office. The same networks that mobilized Chernyshov’s bail remain intact. And crucially, parliament left three dangerous provisions that weaken the broader prosecutorial system.

The tools that remain

While NABU and SAPO regained their statutory independence, the government retained legal mechanisms that could still disrupt their work:

• No competitive selection for prosecutors during martial law: Anyone with basic legal credentials can be appointed to senior positions without open competition, potentially placing loyalists in overlapping jurisdictions.
  
• Dismissal through “reorganization”: Prosecutors can be fired by dissolving or restructuring their units, bypassing routine disciplinary procedures.
  
• Sweeping case control for the Prosecutor General: The Prosecutor General can requisition any case, halt proceedings, and give direct instructions to investigators.

The government can’t longer directly control NABU and SAPO, but it can create pressure points. Many high-profile corruption cases involve multiple jurisdictions. The Prosecutor General can, for example, influence sensitive investigations without formally touching the agencies’ autonomy by controlling appointments, reassigning personnel, or pulling case materials.

As the Agency for Legislative Initiative warned, the ability to appoint prosecutors without competition “undermines selection standards, contradicts the principle of prosecutorial independence, and creates risks for the legitimacy of personnel decisions.”

Why Western allies are watching

On 21 July 2025, Ukraine’s Security Service made dramatic claims: the country’s top anti-corruption agencies were plagued with Russian infiltrators. Simply devastating during wartime—Russian spies had penetrated the National Anti-Corruption Bureau and Specialized Anti-Corruption Prosecutor’s Office, threatening national security at its core.

The next day, parliament rushed through Law No. 12414, bringing both agencies under control of the prosecutor general. Despite protests flaring across Ukrainian cities, Zelenskyy promptly signed the legislation. “The anti-corruption infrastructure will work, NABU and SAPO will work,” Zelenskyy declared that evening, “but without Russian influences that had to be removed.”

Nobody explained how unprecedented prosecutorial control over independent bodies would decrease supposed Russian control within them.

But here’s the greatest catch: nearly all claims of Russian influence appear to fall apart under scrutiny, according to Ukrainska Pravda’s latest investigation.

The justification for dismantling a decade of anti-corruption infrastructure? It’s crumbling two weeks later.

Ukraine anti-corruption investigators targeted, evidence missing

Ukrainska Pravda’s investigation reveals how surprisingly weak the actual proof remains. The outlet interviewed multiple sources to examine what investigators actually found versus what they claimed.

The case against Viktor Gusarov centers on allegations he provided classified information to a former Yanukovych-era security official while working in NABU’s elite D-2 unit. The Security Service claims to have documented “at least 60 instances” of information transfer to Russian intelligence.

But when NABU requested evidence about Gusarov’s alleged crimes in July, “they haven’t received an answer to this day,” Ukrainska Pravda reports.

The investigation into Ruslan Magamedrasulov involves his family’s hemp business, which the Security Service alleges was used for illegal exports to Russia. Authorities arrested over 100 tons of technical hemp they claimed was “ready for shipment to Dagestan.”

Olena Shcherban, Magamedrasulov’s lawyer, told Ukrainska Pravda the hemp business was entirely legal—producing tea, oils, and dietary supplements sold only within Ukraine. She suspects the Security Service’s audio recordings were “glued together from cuts of different conversations” and plans to request the original recordings.

Several targeted NABU employees faced searches simply for having relatives in occupied territories with Russian passports—a situation affecting millions of Ukrainian families divided by Russia’s 2014 invasion.

NABU detectives handling Zelenskyy inner circle cases targeted

Here’s what actually happened: the operation focused on investigators handling cases involving Zelenskyy’s inner circle.

Magamedrasulov “participated in documenting the activities” of Timur Mindich, Zelenskyy’s business partner from Kvartal-95 studio. Sources told Ukrainska Pravda the targeting of regional NABU leadership was specifically connected to the Mindich case.

Detective Ivan Kravchuk was handling the case against former Agriculture Minister Mykola Solskyy, who was forced to resign due to NABU’s investigation.

Detective Oleksandr Skomar was running the case against former Deputy Prime Minister Oleksiy Chernyshov—Zelenskyy’s birthday party guest during COVID lockdown.

And here’s where the pieces connect: Prosecutor General Ruslan Kravchenko’s priority task, appointed just one month before the operation, was to neutralize NABU’s case against Chernyshov, according to Ukrainska Pravda’s earlier reporting.

The pattern becomes clear when examining who faced the heaviest scrutiny—not abstract security threats, but investigators probing the president’s personal network.

Details here

Inside Zelenskyy’s failed coup against Ukraine’s anti-corruption agencies

Security Service sources doubt operation

Even within the Security Service, doubts emerged.

“Sources in several law enforcement agencies emphasize that doubts exist within the Security Service itself not only regarding such verdicts, but also the validity of such suspicions,” Ukrainska Pravda reports.

Most tellingly, sources said anti-corruption agency leaders demanded Zelenskyy either “publicly justify the Security Service’s actions and accusations, or release the employees.”

EU freezes billions as evidence crumbles

The weak evidence helps explain why the operation became the final straw for international partners. The European Union froze $1.7 billion in aid immediately after the controversial law passed, with another $3.8 billion hanging in the balance.

For Brussels, this wasn’t just about one law. European officials had already flagged structural problems with Ukraine’s anti-corruption policy during an 11 July 2025 subcommittee meeting, weeks before the controversial legislation.

Explore further

The EU is withholding billions from Ukraine and honestly, it’s kinda fair

Civil society forces complete retreat

What Ukrainian authorities didn’t anticipate was civil society’s strength. Within hours of the law passing, mass demonstrations erupted across Kyiv, Lviv, Dnipro, and Odesa—the largest protests since Russia’s invasion began.

Teenagers and young adults led chants, organizing through social media, holding signs comparing Zelenskyy to fugitive dictator Viktor Yanukovych. A generation that grew up after Euromaidan was showing that Ukraine’s democratic transformation had become irreversible.

After 10 days of street pressure and international condemnation, parliament voted 331-0 to restore anti-corruption agency independence on 31 July.

Ukraine’s GenZ revolution

They came. They cussed. They won.

Broader institutional pressure continues

The anti-corruption operation wasn’t isolated. Even after July’s retreat, the administration continued efforts to control oversight bodies through other means.

Ukraine’s Cabinet finally appointed Oleksandr Tsyvinskyi as director of the Bureau of Economic Security on 6 August 2025, ending weeks of obstruction that risked $2.3 billion in IMF funding. Tsyvinskyi had won the official selection process unanimously in July, but the appointment stalled amid unsubstantiated security concerns about his Russian-born father—the same playbook used against other qualified investigators.

Explore further

Ukraine caves under $ 2.3 bn threat, appoints investigator it desperately wanted to block

Media under pressure

The investigation takes on added significance given Ukrainska Pravda’s own pressure campaign. Editor-in-chief Sevgil Musayeva told The Times that advertising revenue dropped sharply after the President’s Office allegedly asked companies to boycott the publication.

According to Forbes Ukraine, the outlet lost $240,000 in advertising revenue due to this pressure.

Ukrainska Pravda first reported systematic pressure from the President’s Office in October 2024, just months after investigating corruption cases involving Zelenskyy’s inner circle.

What this reveals

Ukrainska Pravda’s investigation confirms what many suspected: dramatic claims of Russian infiltration provided convenient cover for an attempt to destroy institutional independence. The evidence for that infiltration remains conspicuously absent.

Two NABU detectives remain imprisoned on charges the investigation suggests may lack substance. The episode demonstrated Ukrainian democratic culture’s resilience, but also showed how easily security services can be weaponized when investigations reach the wrong people.

For now, civil society has successfully resisted institutional capture. The protests forced parliament to restore anti-corruption agency independence. International pressure secured Tsyvinskyi’s appointment, demonstrating that merit-based selections can prevail.

But vigilance remains essential. The President’s Office has demonstrated its willingness to take drastic measures to protect Zelenskyy’s inner circle—using fabricated security concerns, weaponizing law enforcement, and pressuring media outlets.

The successful resistance offers hope that Ukraine’s democratic institutions can withstand authoritarian pressure. But it also serves as a warning: when corruption investigations reach the very top, the defenders won’t hesitate to destroy the institutions themselves.

Anti-graft agencies have exposed a scheme of drone bribery involving a ruling party MP and National Guard officers. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy said that those responsible will face justice after investigators revealed how vital military supplies were turned into a source of personal profit.

Anti-graft bodies uncover bribery network in drone supplies

On 2 August that the National Anti-Corruption Bureau (NABU) and the Specialized Anti-Corruption Prosecutor’s Office (SAPO) briefed Zelenskyy about a large scheme involving inflated contracts for drones and electronic warfare systems. This was reported by NABU and Zelenskyy.

A source from law enforcement told Liga that the MP implicated is Oleksii Kuznietsov from Zelenskyy’s Servant of the People party.

Zelenskyy confirmed in a statement that “a deputy of the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine,” heads of local administrations and National Guard servicemembers were caught taking bribes connected to drone contracts.

He called such behavior immoral and damaging, adding that full accountability is necessary. Zelenskyy said he thanked the anti-corruption agencies for their work and said that he expected fair verdicts in the case.

Servant of the People party suspends Kuznietsov

Servant of the People announced that MP Oleksii Kuznietsov’s membership in the faction will be suspended for the duration of the investigation into the exposed drone bribery scheme.

Internal investigation targets National Guard officers

Zelenskyy also said that Interior Minister Ihor Klymenko had started an internal investigation in the National Guard after the exposure of the scheme. Klymenko announced that only combat officers will lead logistics units from now on. He promised to make the results public. According to Klymenko, the commander of the National Guard Oleksandr Pivnenko has already suspended servicemembers allegedly involved in the drone bribery scandal.

Klymenko assured that new safeguards will be introduced in the National Guard to prevent such schemes. He said that a new internal control unit will monitor service activity, working independently and professionally. The team is being formed from specialists who passed checks for integrity and professional competence.

In June 2025, when corruption investigators reached President Volodymyr Zelensky’s inner circle, his team responded with a systematic operation to eliminate Ukraine’s anti-corruption infrastructure.

They deployed parliamentary manipulation, information warfare through Telegram channels, and legal machinations—the full authoritarian toolkit perfected across the post-Soviet space—all to subordinate two key anti-corruption institutions to the presidentially-appointed prosecutor general through a hastily-passed law on 22 July.

The operation was sophisticated, coordinated, and executed with surgical precision. What Zelenskyy’s team didn’t anticipate was that Ukrainian society had evolved beyond their understanding.

Detailed investigations by Ukrainska Pravda and Texty.org.ua reveal how the operation unfolded—and how Ukrainian civil society and European partners forced a complete retreat that exposed post-Soviet patronage reflexes colliding with European democratic standards.

When investigators reached Zelenskyy’s actual family

By June 2025, corruption investigators had crossed a line that post-Soviet leaders consider sacred: they reached Zelenskyy’s actual inner circle.

The National Anti-Corruption Bureau (NABU) charged Deputy Prime Minister Oleksiy Chernyshov with organizing a land scheme that cost the state over $24 million.

Chernyshov wasn’t just another minister.

During Ukraine’s strict COVID lockdown in 2021, when gatherings were banned, Zelenskyy invited only a handful of intimates to celebrate his birthday. Chernyshov was the sole government official present.

Investigators were also preparing charges against Tymur Mindich, Zelenskyy’s business partner from Kvartal 95, the comedy studio where the current Ukrainian president gained his popularity—and a ticket to power. When pressure intensified, MP Yaroslav Zhelezniak reported that Mindich fled Ukraine and “will likely not return in the near future.”

As anti-corruption expert Olena Shcherban told the Kyiv Independent: “NABU and SAPO [Special Anti-Corrupution Prosecutor’s Office] have actually reached the immediate circle of the president’s ‘family.'” She predicted the Presidential Office would attack the institutions rather than abandon the minister.

She was right. When your survival network gets threatened, you protect the network.

The orchestrators revealed

Ukrainska Pravda’s investigation shows who planned the operation. The key figures were:

• Andriy Yermak (Head of Presidential Office);
• newly appointed Prosecutor General Ruslan Kravchenko;
• and lawyer Dmytro Borzykh—a former military prosecutor positioned as the new behind-the-scenes fixer with histories of manipulating court systems.

Here’s what made the operation cynical: Kravchenko’s appointment coincided precisely with Deputy Prime Minister Oleksiy Chernyshov fleeing abroad to avoid corruption charges. The investigation reports that Kravchenko’s final meeting with presidential leadership occurred when Chernyshov “was already abroad and not going to return.”

One law enforcement source told Ukrainska Pravda the instruction was clear: “do everything possible to destroy the influence of NABU and SAPO.” But the plan required parliamentary votes—and that’s where the real manipulation began.

The machinery of power consolidation

The operation deployed multiple tools that aspiring authoritarians use to capture institutions:

• Parliamentary manipulation: On 22 July, deputies were told they were coming to vote on an important appeal to the US Congress about recognizing Russia as a terrorist state. Many had foreign trips canceled. Only when they arrived did faction leaders reveal the “main” vote would come after—a “marker” vote that was “principled for the president.” As one MP told Ukrainska Pravda: “People really had no idea what they would vote for. They said, ‘Why do you need the text?! Vote, it’s important.'” Parliament had roughly one hour to review amendments that fundamentally transformed corruption oversight.
• Buying loyalty through legal deals: MP Robert Horvat from the “Dovira” group had reached a plea agreement with SAPO in his land theft case. But after Kravchenko’s appointment, he refused to sign, telling prosecutors “Klymenko [head of SAPO] will soon be sacked.” Horvat voted both for the anti-corruption law and for Kravchenko’s appointment, along with nine colleagues from his group.
• Manufactured security crisis: On 21 July, SBU conducted 70 searches targeting 15 NABU employees, claiming Russian infiltration. The star villain was Ruslan Magamedrasulov, accused of selling hemp to Dagestan and contacting “FSB agents.” The timing was theatrical—exactly one day before the crucial vote. NABU noted most searches concerned traffic accidents, but Telegram channels immediately called NABU a “branch of the FSB” and photoshopped Russian flags onto its logo.
• Civil society intimidation: Parallel raids targeted anti-corruption activist Vitaliy Shabunin in the run-up to the law. The message was clear: supporting independent oversight brings consequences.
• Information warfare through Telegram: Texty.org.ua’s investigation tracked 246 coordinated posts across 24 popular channels from 5 June to 23 July, revealing a sophisticated influence operation that weaponized Ukraine’s most powerful information medium.

The comedy studio’s systematic capture

This wasn’t just about protecting two friends. After Zelenskyy’s 2019 victory, over 30 former Kvartal 95 employees moved into government positions—what Ukrainian analysts call a “comedy studio government.”

Take Chernyshov himself. In December 2024, Ukraine created the Ministry of National Unity specifically to give him a prominent role.

The new ministry’s purpose remained deliberately vague—supposedly engaging with Ukrainian diaspora abroad, but critics noted this duplicated existing Foreign Ministry functions. Even some ruling party deputies refused to endorse Chernyshov’s nomination due to “lack of clarity regarding the ministry’s purpose.”

Seven months later, after Chernyshov’s corruption charges, the ministry was quietly merged with the Ministry of Social Policy—effectively eliminating it. A ministry created for one man, disbanded when that man became a liability.

But Chernyshov wasn’t appointed for competence—he was appointed for loyalty. He belonged to Zelensky’s intimate circle, invited to birthday celebrations during wartime restrictions. When you staff government based on personal relationships rather than merit, you create a state that can’t tolerate oversight.

The cynical gamble on European integration

What makes the July operation particularly cynical is the timing. European Pravda reveals that Brussels had secretly scheduled 18 July to open Ukraine’s first EU negotiating cluster, bypassing Hungarian obstruction entirely. Zelenskyy knew about these plans—he’d been personally involved in discussions with Danish officials since late June.

But instead of supporting this diplomatic breakthrough, Ukraine systematically undermined its reform credentials. The EU response was swift: Brussels froze $5.5 billion in aid programs, including loans backed by frozen Russian assets. As one European official noted: “Ukraine has done the dirty work instead of Viktor Orbán.”

Explore further

The EU is withholding billions from Ukraine and honestly, it’s kinda fair

The Soviet shadow: why personal loyalty trumps law

What happened next follows patterns that Cambridge academic Alena Ledeneva spent decades documenting in post-Soviet informal networks.

During the Soviet era, personal networks weren’t just convenient—they were survival tools. Ledeneva’s research on blat (the Soviet system of personal favors) shows how people learned to rely on informal connections because formal institutions were instruments of arbitrary repression.

When the law serves power rather than justice, personal loyalty becomes rational defense.

But the cruel irony is that this survival strategy becomes democratic poison when institutions actually start working. What protected people under totalitarianism destroys accountability under democracy.

Zelensky’s response perfectly illustrates this post-Soviet reflex. Instead of accepting that even his inner circle must follow the law, his team moved to eliminate the institutions enforcing accountability.

The mentality that personal loyalty creates immunity from prosecution—that being part of the president’s “family” places you above the law—represents exactly the thinking that helped people survive Soviet totalitarianism.

Ukraine had seen this before. Viktor Yanukovych, the fugitive pro-Russian authoritarian president used identical methods during his presidency.

His prosecutor general Viktor Pshonka called himself “a member of President Viktor Yanukovych’s team” and led the crackdown on protesters against the torpedoing of EU integration in 2013-2014, abusing state power to keep Yanukovych in power. His office pursued the politically motivated prosecution of Yulia Tymoshenko, charging her with abuse of power for a 2009 gas contract.

Both men fled to Russia during the 2014 Euromaidan Revolution.

When civil society said no

Ukrainian democracy had evolved since Yanukovych’s time in ways that proved deeper than anyone expected. Mass demonstrations erupted within hours—the largest protests since Russia’s invasion. Instead of riot police (“cosmonauts” in Ukrainian slang), authorities deployed “police of dialogue.” The contrast with Yanukovych’s Berkut units couldn’t have been starker.

Perhaps most telling was the demographic: teenagers and young adults leading chants and organizing through social media.

Ukraine’s response followed patterns that political scientists Ronald Inglehart and Christian Welzel documented in their World Values Survey research: successful democratic transitions correspond with societies shifting from “survival values” (emphasizing economic security and low tolerance) to “self-expression values” (prioritizing individual freedom, tolerance, and political participation).

When Zelensky’s team tried to preserve Soviet-style “family immunity,” Ukrainians chose institutional accountability over patronage protection.

European pressure reinforced Ukrainian resistance. On 31 July, parliament voted 331-0 to restore anti-corruption agency independence.

Explore further

They came. They cussed. They won.

The test and the warning

This was Ukraine’s first major test of whether it had outgrown the post-Soviet patronage trap. Zelensky’s team tried to replicate the loyalty-first system that had dominated Ukrainian politics for decades. When independent institutions threatened their inner circle, they deployed the full authoritarian toolkit.

However, Ukrainian civil society matured during three decades of independence and intensified during three years of war. When citizens recognized the Yanukovych pattern, they defended democratic accountability.

The victory comes with warnings. The machinery for institutional capture remains in place. Just weeks after the crisis, Zelenskyy appointed Yuliia Svyrydenko as Prime Minister—widely viewed as closely aligned with Yermak. As former President Petro Poroshenko noted: “Replacing Shmyhal, who was ‘Yermak in a shirt,’ with Svyrydenko, who will be ‘Yermak in a skirt,’ changes nothing.”

It is telling that in her first major western interview, which ran on the same day as the Rada gutted NABU and SAPO, Svyrydenko played down Ukrainian corruption, alleging that the problem is overstated. The pool of anonymous pro-Zelenskyy Telegram channels pushed this quote extensively while protests flooded four cities.

More substantially, her government has refused to appoint Oleksandr Tsyvinsky as head of the Bureau of Economic Security, despite his selection by an independent commission and backing from the IMF. The refusal continues the same pattern of blocking oversight appointments that triggered the July crisis.

Most concerning, the team that orchestrated this operation—Yermak, Kravchenko, and their networks—remain in position. They’ve learned from this failure and may attempt more subtle approaches next time.

A bitter irony is involved. Zelenskyy built his political career playing a fictional president fighting corrupt officials in his TV show “Servant of the People.” Six years into real power, when investigators reached his actual inner circle—not fictional corrupt officials but his birthday party guests and business partners—he chose loyalty over law. This is precisely why independent oversight exists: power corrupts even those who start as anti-corruption outsiders.

The comedy studio presidency may still view independent oversight as existential threat. But Ukrainian civil society has shown it’s stronger than the survival networks trying to capture it. That’s the foundation democracies are built on.

An earlier version of this article mistakenly said that Svyrydenko’s only comment on the crisis was the corruption in Ukraine is overstated

Ukraine’s Parliament, the Verkhovna Rada, voted to restore the independence of its main anti-corruption bodies — the National Anti-Corruption Bureau (NABU) and the Specialized Anti-Corruption Prosecutor’s Office (SAPO) — by passing presidential draft law No. 13533.

The bill passed with 331 votes and was immediately signed in the chamber by Speaker Ruslan Stefanchuk and President Volodymyr Zelenskyy.

For a week leading up to the vote, thousands of Ukrainians across Kyiv, Lviv, Dnipro and Odesa took to the streets — demanding the reversal of controversial changes even under martial law restrictions on public gatherings. It became the largest wave of protests since Russia’s full‑scale invasion.

Although the effectiveness of these anti-corruption bodies has often been questioned, the earlier law that weakened them was widely condemned at home and abroad as authoritarian and unacceptable, concentrating power in the President’s Office and threatening Ukraine’s reform commitments.

“This is a guarantee of the proper independent functioning of our state’s anti-corruption bodies and all law enforcement agencies. This is the right decision,” Zelenskyy wrote on Telegram.

Mass protests force a U-turn

The debate in the chamber was heated, with shouting, accusations, and visible anger.

MPs insisted that the Speaker and President sign the new law immediately, without delay, to quickly cancel the controversial changes adopted a week earlier.

Outside Parliament, in Mariinskyi Park, protesters gathered to listen to the live broadcast of the vote. When the result was announced, they cheered and shouted: “Power belongs to the people!”

Despite martial law restrictions on public gatherings, police did not disperse the rallies that took place in several Ukrainian cities, and the authorities seemed unprepared for such large‑scale resistance to the new law.

For the first time since the start of Russia’s full‑scale invasion, the session of the Verkhovna Rada was broadcast live on the Rada TV channel — a move widely seen as a concession to public pressure and a demand for transparency.

International pressure grows

After the vote, European Commission spokesperson Guillaume Mercier confirmed that the EU has no plans to freeze financial aid for Ukraine.

EU Enlargement Commissioner Marta Kos welcomed the move but noted on X:

“Today’s law restores key safeguards, but challenges remain. The EU supports the Ukrainian citizens’ demands for reform.”

Brussels emphasized that Ukraine must continue to strengthen reforms as part of its EU accession process.

What triggered the crisis

In July, the Security Service of Ukraine (SBU) arrested a NABU detective on charges of spying for Russia, alleging that classified information had been passed to Russian intelligence. Critics said these arrests were used as a pretext to attack and weaken independent anti-corruption agencies.

Anti‑corruption activists further accused President Zelenskyy of retaliating against NABU and SAPO because they had investigated figures close to him, including former Deputy Prime Minister Oleksii Chernyshov and businessman Timur Mindich, a long‑time associate and former partner in Zelenskyy’s media company Kvartal 95.

Soon after, on 22 July, Parliament passed law No. 12414, originally about missing persons. At the last minute, MPs added amendments that made NABU and SAPO dependent on the Prosecutor General, granting that office the power to seize cases, close investigations, and weaken the agencies’ independence.

The move provoked protests and drew sharp criticism from the US and EU. Despite the backlash, Zelenskyy signed the law the same day.

Reversal under pressure

A week later, under public pressure, threats to cut foreign funding, and continuing protests, Zelenskyy introduced draft law No. 13533, restoring NABU and SAPO’s full powers.

The bill was fast-tracked and adopted in full on 31 July.

Harsh words in Parliament

Before the vote, former Speaker Dmytro Razumkov criticized his colleagues:

“Aren’t you tired of eating excrement in this chamber and feeding it to people??!”

Ivanna Klympush-Tsintsadze of the opposition party European Solidarity said Parliament is “run like a collective farm from the President’s Office.”

Yulia Tymoshenko, leader of Batkivshchyna, opposed the bill and claimed Ukraine is under “external control.” Meanwhile, Dmytro Kostiuk, a member of the presidential party Servant of the People, announced he was leaving the faction because of the previous controversial vote.

Other members of Zelenskyy’s Servant of the People party admitted mistakes and even held up protest-style posters inside the chamber.

The episode also highlighted the growing centralization of power in the President’s Office in Kyiv. With elections suspended due to the war with Russia, Parliament is widely seen as following instructions from the presidential administration rather than acting as an independent branch of government.

What the new law changes

The new law cancels the 22 July amendments and returns NABU and SAPO to full independence.
It adds one condition: NABU staff with access to state secrets must pass a polygraph, carried out by NABU’s own internal control unit rather than the SBU.

According to NABU, more than 200 such tests were already conducted in 2024. NABU and SAPO said they took part in drafting the new law, are satisfied with its provisions, and strongly supported its swift adoption.

Criticism of NABU and SAPO

Ukraine’s anti‑corruption system includes NABU, SAPO, the National Agency on Corruption Prevention (NACP) and the High Anti‑Corruption Court (HACC).

Despite significant funding and Western support, their effectiveness remains debated. Critics point out that these bodies are costly, operate in a grey constitutional area, lack independent audits, and have brought few senior officials to justice in almost ten years.

Supporters argue that these problems cannot be solved by a single, quickly adopted law, but require long‑term reforms, stronger oversight and real political independence.

The creation of these institutions was one of the EU’s key conditions for granting Ukraine a visa‑free regime and a requirement for Western financial aid. Western partners helped launch and fund them after concluding that Ukraine’s “old” police and prosecution services had failed to eradicate top‑level corruption.

Ukraine reversed a controversial oversight law on 31 July, a move that promises to restore the independence of key anti-corruption bodies. However, the damage may already be done: the EU has frozen $1.7 billion in aid, which puts more people at risk. Why did Brussels pull the brakes, and what will it take to unfreeze the funds? Here’s what you need to know.

1

What happened?

On 22 July, Ukrainians took to the streets in mass protests after the Verkhovna Rada hastily passed draft law No. 12414. The law aimed to place Ukraine’s premier anti-corruption agencies — the National Anti-Corruption Bureau (NABU) and the Specialised Anti-Corruption Prosecutor’s Office (SAPO) — under broader prosecutorial oversight.

Protesters saw this as an attempt to weaken the country’s flagship anti-corruption institutions. Days later, the European Union froze $1.7 billion in financial support — the first such move under the $57 billion Ukraine Facility fund. Another $3.8 billion now hangs in the balance.

On 31 July, facing pressure from protesters and foreign partners, the Verkhovna Rada repealed the law. This was a victory for civil society, but Brussels remains cautious.

2

Why did Brussels act now?

Since Russia’s full-scale invasion began, the EU has shown considerable patience with reform timelines. But patience has limits. The European Commission clarified that financial support depends on concrete, verifiable reforms — not just promises.

For years, Ukraine has pledged to protect independent anti-corruption institutions, something most Ukrainians see as a tangible result of the 2013-14 Revolution of Dignity. Brussels now believes those promises are eroding.

The hastily passed law on 22 July was the final trigger. Even though Ukraine repealed it nine days later, credibility was damaged.

3

Was this just about one law?

No. Behind the scenes, European diplomats had been signaling concerns for weeks. According to official commentary cited by Serhiy Sydorenko in European Pravda, the European Commission flagged structural problems during an 11 July subcommittee meeting — weeks before the controversial law was passed.

EU officials warned Kyiv of backsliding in anti-corruption policy, including slow appointments to key posts like the SAPO head and a lack of follow-through on previously promised reforms. While the protest and repeal made headlines, the decision to suspend funds had deeper roots.

The EU’s emphasis isn’t on a single legislative act, but on Ukraine’s broader governance trajectory. The freeze wasn’t a reaction — it was a culmination.

4

What’s the problem with NABU and SAPO?

NABU was created in 2015 to investigate high-level corruption. SAPO, its prosecutorial counterpart, was founded the same year to ensure such cases reach court. Together, they form Ukraine’s flagship anti-corruption structure.

Both agencies have delivered results — investigating former MPs and state-owned company executives, exposing schemes like Ukrzaliznytsia officials purchasing more than 11,000 COVID-19 PCR tests at inflated prices. But they’ve also faced internal pressures and political interference.

The now-repealed law would have effectively removed their operational autonomy by altering oversight mechanisms — precisely what the EU wants Ukraine to safeguard. Repealing the law was necessary, but Brussels is watching what comes next.

5

Is it just about NABU and SAPO?

No. The Asset Recovery and Management Agency (ARMA) presents an even bigger problem. ARMA handles confiscated assets from corruption cases: bank accounts, apartments, luxury cars, and company shares. The concept is straightforward — crime shouldn’t pay.

But ARMA has a serious credibility problem. Assets have vanished, and auctions have been opaque, with luxury items sold at suspiciously low prices. Some of ARMA’s officials are under investigation.

A March 2025 audit by Ukraine’s Accounting Chamber revealed the scope of dysfunction. Of more than 100,000 court rulings instructing ARMA to manage seized assets, only 1% were transferred, leaving over UAH 39 billion unmanaged. Over 61% of disposed assets lacked proper market valuation, resulting in estimated losses of UAH 769 million. Staff shortages and underfunding (just 56% of needed resources) have impeded the agency’s ability to conduct proper oversight.

The EU demands serious structural reform: a public asset registry, transparent auction procedures, and an independent supervisory board. Without these, the additional $3.8 billion will be suspended.

6

How does the EU make these freezing decisions?

The Commission’s actions are tied to the European Reform Agenda (ERA), a jointly agreed-upon roadmap between Ukraine and the EU. The ERA outlines reforms needed to keep financial and political support flowing, covering judicial reform, public administration, democratic standards, and anti-corruption.

The Commission can recommend a funding freeze when Ukraine fails to meet ERA milestones. This decision must be endorsed by a qualified majority of EU member states — not a unilateral move, but a multilayered institutional process. Bodies like the European Court of Auditors and the European Anti-Fraud Office also provide input.

This wasn’t a political knee-jerk reaction. It was a coordinated decision by multiple EU institutions concluding that Ukraine had failed to meet key transparency and institutional independence conditions.

7

Is the EU turning its back on Ukraine?

Far from it. Brussels is doubling down on standards. After missteps with countries like Hungary, where Viktor Orbán took EU money while gradually dismantling democratic institutions, Brussels learned that early neglect leads to long-term democratic backsliding.

With Ukraine, the stakes are higher. Never before has the EU committed so much money, and never to a country at war. The EU is holding Ukraine to higher standards precisely because it wants Ukraine to succeed.

8

What’s at risk for Ukraine financially?

The war has ballooned Ukraine’s budget needs. Western aid helps fund pensions, salaries, schools, and basic services — not just weapons. The frozen $1.7 billion was part of that lifeline. The potential additional $3.8 billion represents almost 10% of the total Ukraine Facility.

Even temporary freezes hurt. Creditors grow nervous. Budget planning becomes chaotic. Most importantly, public trust in government commitments begins to erode. Credibility becomes your most valuable currency when you’re fighting a war while depending on international support.

9

Does war excuse reform fatigue?

Ukrainian officials argue that wartime makes reforms harder to implement. Brussels has responded that being at war makes transparent, accountable institutions more critical, not less. When you’re depending on billions in international aid, donors need absolute confidence that money is being handled properly.

The EU’s position is clear: wartime doesn’t justify rolling back anti-corruption measures — it makes them more urgent.

10

Can Ukraine reverse the freeze by year-end?

Yes, and there are signs of movement. Repealing the oversight law on 31 July was a first step. Ukraine must demonstrate “verifiable corrective steps” — actions, not promises.

This means protecting NABU’s independence, restoring SAPO’s prosecutorial authority, and ensuring both agencies can operate without political interference. Some draft laws are already in the works, and civil society remains vocal.

According to European Pravda, EU officials have reportedly received informal commitments from Ukraine to pass corrective measures in the autumn. These will be scrutinized not only for their content, but also for how transparently and independently they’re implemented. There’s quiet hope that the suspension can be reversed before year-end — but only if progress becomes visible soon.

The $1.7 billion freeze stems from three unmet reform indicators:

• Territorial reorganization of executive power (draft law #4298, registered in 2020, costing $570 million in lost funding);
• Selection of High Anti-Corruption Court judges (legally enabled in June but still not implemented);
• ARMA reforms (already discussed above).

Additionally, Ukraine faces another overdue commitment — vocational education reform legislation due by the end of June — which could trigger further funding penalties in the next reporting period.

The EU’s rules give Ukraine 12 months to complete any reform milestone after the original deadline has passed. This grace period means the funds can still be released in full — but with a delay. However, Kyiv has already lost four of those twelve months. In the case of ARMA, that delay is even more tangible. Due to the agency’s non-compliance with basic criteria, Ukraine has definitively lost out on $85 million in performance-based funding tied to asset recovery benchmarks.

11

Can Ukraine save the $3.8 billion?

Saving the $3.8 billion requires comprehensive ARMA reform. Ukraine needs legislation ensuring transparency, accountability, and protection from political interference. This means proper oversight mechanisms, clear asset management procedures, and eliminating corruption opportunities.

The reforms must address ARMA’s documented failures: the suspicious auctions, unexplained losses, and criminal investigations of top officials. Brussels wants systemic changes, not personnel shuffles. A reliable asset registry, transparent valuation processes, and adequate staffing are non-negotiable.

If Ukraine delivers these reforms, the $3.8 billion will remain available. If not, it will join the frozen $1.7 billion.

12

What happens if Ukraine fails both tests?

Failure to restore NABU and SAPO independence keeps the $1.7 billion frozen. Failure to fix ARMA suspends another $3.8 billion. That’s $5.5 billion at risk — nearly 10% of the entire Ukraine Facility.

Beyond immediate financial impact, failure damages Ukraine’s credibility with other international donors and delays EU accession. The EU has clarified that Ukraine’s membership path depends on building accountable, transparent institutions.

The stakes are particularly high because Ukraine’s citizens have demonstrated a desire for better governance. If the government can’t respond to domestic and international pressure for reform, it raises fundamental questions about its commitment to European integration.

13

Why does this matter beyond Europe?

The United States, World Bank, and other international donors are watching closely. For Ukraine, credibility is currency. Others might follow if the EU — Ukraine’s strongest backer — loses confidence. That could slow financial flows and military and political support.

The outcome will help define the kind of state Ukraine is becoming and whether the West can demand reform while supporting a war partner.

×

Ukraine faces a potential funding shortfall of $10-15 billion next year as the country struggles to meet reform commitments demanded by international lenders while maintaining intensive defense spending, according to a Reuters analysis.

The government currently directs most state revenues toward military operations, relying on foreign aid totaling $139 billion since Russia’s February 2022 invasion to cover social and humanitarian expenses, state data shows.

Central Bank Governor Andriy Pyshnyi revealed that only one-third of the $65 billion required for 2026-2027 has been secured, with negotiations continuing for the remainder. A survey of eight economists by the Centre for Economic Studies in Kyiv indicates Ukraine will need between $39 billion and $58 billion in external financing for 2025 alone.

“A key challenge for the government now is to look for $10-15 billion in addition to that volume of aid which partners have already pledged for 2026,” ICU investment house stated in a research note, according to Reuters.

The funding gap has widened after Ukraine missed several reform targets agreed with lenders, including judicial appointments and anti-corruption leadership positions. President Volodymyr Zelenskyy’s decision to tighten control over the National Anti-Corruption Bureau (NABU) and Specialized Anti-Corruption Prosecutor’s Office sparked the largest wartime street protests and drew sharp criticism from European allies.

Zelenskyy subsequently reversed course, submitting new legislation to parliament to restore institutional independence. The draft bill was scheduled for a vote on 31 July.

Demonstrators gathered on the evening of 30 July in six Ukrainian cities calling on authorities to approve a draft law strengthening the powers of the National Anti-Corruption Bureau (NABU) and the Specialized Anti-Corruption Prosecutor’s Office (SAPO).

The protests come after the parliamentary committee on law enforcement unanimously supported earlier on 30 July President Zelenskyy’s draft law №13533 on restoring the powers of the NABU and SAPO.

People assembled in Kyiv despite inclement weather. Protesters chanted “Power belongs to the people,” “Corruption kills,” and “Hands off NABU,” while also singing the national anthem.

People’s Deputy Yaroslav Zheleznyak joined demonstrators, saying journalists that he has no doubt the Verkhovna Rada (Ukraine’s Parliament) will pass presidential draft law #13533 on 31 July.

“One should expect the adoption of the law by which President Zelenskyy, together with the coalition, will heroically, powerfully and unstoppably fix everything that they so heroically, powerfully and unstoppably created on 22 July,” Zheleznyak responded with irony.

In Zaporizhzhia, people gathered near the regional administration building holding themed posters and chanting “Cancel,” “Our voice is stronger,” “We stand for democracy,” and “Hands off NABU,” according to correspondents.

Radio Svoboda reports that nearly 200 protesters assembled in Kharkiv, chanting “Corruption kills,” “Ukraine’s power belongs to the people,” and “Hands off NABU.” Similar demonstrations took place in Lviv, Dnipro, and Odesa.

The protests follow the parliamentary committee on law enforcement unanimously supporting presidential draft law #13533, which would restore powers to anti-corruption agencies that were previously removed.

On 22 July, the Verkhovna Rada passed law #12414 with amendments to the Criminal Procedure Code that made NABU and SAPO dependent on decisions by the prosecutor general. President Zelenskyy signed the legislation that same evening, prompting protests across multiple Ukrainian cities.

Following the backlash, Zelenskyy submitted a new draft law to parliament that he said would ensure “strength to the law enforcement system” while preserving “all norms for the independence of anti-corruption institutions.”

The National Anti-Corruption Bureau reproted that Zelenskyy’s draft law would restore all powers and independence guarantees for NABU and SAPO.

The parliamentary committee on law enforcement unanimously supported President Zelenskyy’s draft law №13533 on restoring the powers of the National Anti-corruption Bureau of Ukraine (NABU) and the Specialized Anti-corruption Prosecutor’s Office (SAPO), according to MP Yaroslav Zheleznyak.

The committee approved the document without any amendments to the originally registered text, Zheleznyak said. The draft law received 19 votes in favor, with no opposition or abstentions recorded.

“Tomorrow (July 31 — ed.) this decision will be put to a vote in the Rada hall. Immediately in two readings. Everything will be fine — there are more than enough votes,” Zheleznyak said.

The move represents a reversal from events, when on the evening of 22 July Zelenskyy signed a law that limited the independence of the anti-corruption institutions NABU and SAPO.

That decision prompted thousands of people to participate in protest rallies in Kyiv and other Ukrainian cities. Protesters chanted: “Veto the law,” “Return Europe,” and “Shame.”

Responding to the protests, President Volodymyr Zelenskyy announced plans to submit a draft law to the Verkhovna Rada that will restore independence to NABU and SAPO. Zelenskyy said that the text of the draft law “guarantees real strengthening of the law enforcement system in Ukraine, independence of anti-corruption bodies, as well as reliable protection of the law enforcement system from any Russian influence or interference.”

According to the document published on the Rada’s website, the subordination of the Specialized Anti-corruption Prosecutor’s Office (SAPO) to the Prosecutor General will be abolished. Other provisions include limiting the Prosecutor General’s influence on NABU, institutional independence of SAPO, and simplified procedures for appointing prosecutors.

On 30 July, MPs submitted two additional alternative draft laws concerning NABU and SAPO. The total number of alternative documents has now increased to six.

The Ukrainian government resists appointing the head of one of its anti-corruption agencies, delaying the start of its work. Meanwhile, the EU says this setback in the Economic Security Bureau (BEB) running endangers Kyiv’s credibility and $3 billion in support, European Pravda reports. 

European Commission demands: appoint Tsyvinsky according to the law

The European Commission calls on the Ukrainian government to immediately appoint the head of the agency, which has already been chosen in accordance with current legislation and transparent procedures.

Oleksandr Tsyvinsky is a National Anti-Corruption Bureau (NABU) detective who won the BEB director position in June 2025. The competition involved international experts. The BEB reform is one condition for Ukraine to receive $3 billion in international aid.

Tsyvinsky leads one of NABU’s elite detective units and became known for his participation in the “Clean City” investigation. His appointment was to symbolize the restoration of trust in anti-corruption bodies.

However, on 7 July, the Ukrainian government refused to approve him, citing “security concerns” as assessed by the Security Service. In response, Tsyvinsky stated that the government’s decision “does not comply with the law.”

Confrontation with NABU: a new round of pressure

The government’s refusal to approve the competition winner marked another escalation in tense relations between Ukrainian authorities and NABU, which sharply intensified this summer.

On 22 July, President Volodymyr Zelenskyy signed the controversial bill, which curtails the NABU’s independence, as well as the liberty of the Specialized Anti-Corruption Prosecutor’s Office (SAPO), by requiring their key decisions to be coordinated with the Prosecutor General’s Office. 

19 Ukrainian protest signs that are pure art (and also completely unhinged)

The law led to mass civil society protests and criticism from international partners as it contradicts Ukraine’s commitments to the EU and the US on anti-corruption reforms. 

The EU has already warned diplomatically that undermining NABU’s independence will have serious consequences for further EU integration and aid volumes. The situation around BEB only deepens the trust crisis.

Business and partners demand appointment

The business community, over 124 associations and 27,000 companies, published an open letter urging the authorities not to delay appointing the competition winner.

“Kyiv must promptly appoint the BEB director according to the law on BEB reform and current procedures,” says a European Commission spokesperson.

Appointing Tsyvinsky is a key condition for advancing the BEB reform and preserving the institution’s independence. The EU enlargement report for 2024 emphasized that the competition must be transparent, based on personal merits and integrity.

The Selection Commission has sent Tsyvinsky’s documents to the Cabinet for the second time, and Europeans are closely watching whether the government will fulfill its commitments.

“Fucked up reformers!” screamed the sign of 18-year-old Polina, the girl with the green hair. Her companion’s metaphorically shouted “CUNTS” in huge green letters. Teenage profanity filled every corner of the first large wartime protests engulfing Ukraine’s capital.

It could have been any Gen Z rebellion against the system. And in a way, it was—against a system where President Zelenskyy gutted Ukraine’s anti-corruption bodies over just 72 hours. Except it was also a protest for a system—the one Ukraine dreamed up during the Euromaidan revolution in 2014.

“I don’t give a fuck,” Polina snapped back at criticism over the protests’ expletive language. “Swearing allows you to express an opinion and is part of the freedom of speech. Get it?”

Prudes on Facebook scolded protesters like her: it was beneath Ukrainian national dignity to devolve to such unholy vocabulary.

Yet there she was, a first-year student of Ukraine’s top university, one uncle killed during the 2014 protests where Ukrainians rebelled against a pro-Russian president’s U-turn on EU integration, and another uncle killed fighting the Russian invasion, unapologetically demanding political accountability from Ukraine’s current president.

“We know our history, we know why this happened. We are fighting for our freedom from Russia. We are against Ukraine turning into Russia from the inside. So, NABU should be an independent institution,” she said, holding her expletive sign.

Polina encapsulated the main demand of the protests—that a law to bring Ukraine’s anti-graft agencies under the control of a presidentially appointed prosecutor is repealed.

Tens of thousands of people like Polina, holding a sea of cardboard signs, may have just saved Ukraine’s democracy.

The 20-somethings who organized a revolution in 24 hours

Twenty-three-year-old Zinaida Averina never expected to become the architect of Ukraine’s first wartime democratic uprising. When parliament rushed through legislation gutting anti-corruption agencies on 22 July, she created a Telegram chat for protesters that exploded to over 2,000 people within hours.

The chat became a masterclass in grassroots democracy. Participants debated protest demands, coordinated with police, organized snacks and water stations, and—uniquely for a political movement—created separate threads for memes and hookups. “What could be sexier than a clear civic position?” joked one organizer. “We need to solve the demographic crisis!”

Many signs cheekily declared “This cardboard is paid for”—a stab at conspiracy theories claiming Western funding behind the protests’ eruption.

But the most remarkable thing happened on the streets. “Two very young people, eyes shining with excitement, look at the crowd,” witnessed Anton Senenko. “Katia, this is our first Maidan!” one exclaimed, invoking Kyiv’s Independence Square, Maidan Nezalezhnosti, where all the revolutions happen.

They kissed.

Not exactly your typical protest energy. But then again, this wasn’t your typical protest.

Explore further

“I defended Zelenskyy against Trump’s dictatorship accusations. Now I can’t,” says Ukraine’s top corruption fighter

Why swearing terrified the authorities more than anything

Critics fixated on the protesters’ colorful language, missing why it was so politically effective. Oleksandr Rachev explained the strategy behind the swearing.

“When you tell authorities ‘you’re wrong,’ you stay within a model of respect that doesn’t frighten them,” he noted. “When you say ‘you’ve lost your fucking minds,’ it means questioning their very legitimacy. And that scares them.”

The profanity served another function: mass appeal. “Swearing is considered the language of ‘ordinary people,'” Ravchev continued. “University professors and activists don’t swear—that’s why they stay in their intellectual bubble. Swearing is a bridge between creative youth protesting and ordinary voters who actually vote.”

The slogan “I need a system that works for me” would be fine for intellectuals, he argued. But “Why the fuck do I need a system that works against me?” reaches ordinary people’s minds. “Because that’s exactly how they talk.”

Behind those Facebook posts scolding protesters about “pure language,” Ravchev detected real fear: “The authorities are terrified that profane protest slogans will reach mass voters and sweep them away.”

Academic Volodymyr Kulyk found himself shouting “The Office fucked up” despite never swearing in front of his wife in 35 years. The moment surprised him—but he understood what was happening.

The youth had “finally desacralized power, which can now be addressed without picking words, at least when it deserves it,” he wrote. When even a polite academic starts cursing at the government, something fundamental has shifted.

The war’s children have gray hair

But there was a deeper reason behind the raw language. These weren’t typical teenagers. Tetiana Troshchynska noted: “My hairdresser tells me about all the gray children she gives haircuts to. 12, 13, 16 years old. Half-gray heads, gray streaks, peppered gray. I tell some, not others, because they’re sad and crying. I don’t know where they’re from, what they’ve experienced, who they’ve lost.”

The Kapranov Brothers added: “Swearing is a consequence of war, exactly like ruins, minefields and trenches. Just as we’ll have to demine forests and seas from Russian mines after the war, we’ll have to demine heads from swearing. But—after the war.”

These weren’t kids who idealized the two anti-corruption agencies, NABU (National Anti-Corruption Bureau) and SAPO (Special Anti-Corruption Prosecutor’s Office). Most protesters readily admitted both agencies had problems—corruption scandals, slow investigations, bureaucratic failures.

“They’re trying to get rid of essentially the only anti-corruption mechanism that Ukraine has,” Marco, a 25-year-old who lived in Chicago for a decade before returning to Kyiv, explained to Euromaidan Press.

“By doing that, they’re trying to integrate it into the actual government, which makes it so the people in government who are corrupt decide whether they themselves are corrupt, right? So, it’s a little counterintuitive.”

NABU and SAPO, whatever their flaws, were the first real separation of power in Ukraine—bringing it closer to a functioning democracy and further from the likes of the autocracies in Russia and Belarus.

More in our editorial

Editorial: Zelenskyy opens a second front—against his own people

The twitter-space goes offline

But focusing on the swearing missed the real cultural phenomenon. Most signs weren’t profane—they were poetic.

Ukrainian cultural observer Olena Oleksandra Chervonik noted that these cardboard creations represented “real poetry, with all its nerve and broken form. Something in the tradition of Ukrainian futurists—short, with broken lines, unconventional syllable division.”

Signs mixed Latin script with Cyrillic, quoted Taras Shevchenko alongside modern poets, featured portraits of Lesya Ukrainka next to Zelensky caricatures.

“If you want to know where modern poetry is in Ukraine—here it is, on these cardboards,” one literary critic observed. “Poetry as a weapon is something very Ukrainian.”

This was Ukraine’s first Twitter-era protest movement; the cardboard sea of short, punchy statements was tweets gone offline.

Yet paradoxically, it produced some of the most sophisticated political poetry seen on Ukrainian streets:

• “Do cattle low when NABU is whole?”—parodying a 19th-century Ukrainian novel by Panás Myrnyi, which basically says that cattle (people) don’t complain when they’re well-fed;
• “Nations don’t die of heart attacks—first they lose their NABU and SAPO”—riffing on modern poetess Lina Kostenko, “Nations don’t die of heart attacks—first they lose their speech”;
• or the blunt “Why the fuck do I need a system that works against me?”

The unspoken wartime contract, broken

The protests revealed something deeper than anger over specific legislation. As wounded veteran and protester Sabir explained: “We had an unspoken social contract: we don’t criticize the authorities during war, but they don’t pull any bullshit. But they kept pulling bullshit. Now they decided they could allow themselves more. People showed they couldn’t.”

The speed of the legislation shocked even seasoned political observers. Bills typically languish in parliament for months. This one passed in hours, with Zelensky signing it the same evening as protests erupted outside his office.

“When you pass such a law in one evening, it looks very much like fear of losing power,” said IT worker Olena Danyliuk, 31. “They’re trembling at the thought they might have to give up power.”

EU officials were reportedly shocked when they learned of the legislation. Brussels had planned to secretly fast-track Ukraine’s accession talks, but the anti-corruption law threatened that timeline.

Perhaps Ukraine was following Georgia’s trajectory—offering high hopes but ultimately succumbing to pro-Russian authoritarianism?

Not so fast, said the youngsters with their “silly” signs.

Explore further

EU had a secret plan to bypass Orbán. Zelenskyy blew it up instead.

When Gen Z rebellion goes right

The contrast with Western youth movements couldn’t be more vivid. While American and European teenagers often target democratic institutions themselves—demanding to tear down systems they see as irredeemably corrupt—Ukrainian Gen Z fight to preserve and strengthen democratic institutions against authoritarian capture.

This difference reveals an ironic truth: Western youth don’t know how good they have it. They’ve never lived without independent courts, free press, or anti-corruption agencies. They can afford to attack these institutions because they’ve never experienced their absence.

Ukrainian twenty-somethings have gray hair at 16 and dead relatives in their family trees. They know exactly what happens when democratic institutions disappear. They are, actually, dying for a stab at a democratic future, not the one that Russia offers—where opposition figures end up dead or imprisoned, where corruption flows unchecked because there’s no independent oversight.

As veteran protester Ivan Chyhyryn, who lost his leg rescuing a wounded comrade, told reporters: “My parents were on Maidan in 2014 when I was very young. Creating independent anti-corruption institutions was one of their goals. What my parents fought for is now being thrown away.”

His generation inherited revolution in their DNA—the Orange Revolution in 2004, the Revolution of Dignity in 2014, and now resistance to democratic backsliding in 2025. But unlike previous generations who had to build democracy from scratch, these youth were defending institutions they’d grown up with.

The cardboard revolution’s victory?

By Wednesday evening, Zelensky announced he would submit new legislation preserving anti-corruption agencies’ independence. “We heard the street,” he said—the same president who’d ignored international criticism and parliamentary opposition.

And this illustrated the main difference between Ukraine and Russia: Russian opposition complains it can’t change anything while Ukrainian teenagers flood the streets with “Fuck corruption” signs and win.

“I genuinely believe that if this happened in Russia, police would have just come in and beat everybody up,” Marco told Euromaidan Press. “In Ukraine, though, we really are freedom-loving and we will show the government that we are the ones in charge, not them.”

Even Russian independent media called these protests a “political crisis.” For Russians, street demonstrations represent a system breakdown. For Ukrainians, they represent the system working—checks and balances moving from the streets into the political fabric.

As protester Polina put it: “Only we can fight for our best future. That’s why we’re all here.”

Not bad for a generation whose main political tools are Twitter, Telegram, and magic markers.

Explore further

Explained: why Ukraine nuked its own anti-corruption agencies

After a law limiting the independence of anti-corruption bodies came into effect, one of them, the National Anti-Corruption Bureau or NABU, announced the completion of investigations of long-term cases. Four high-profile criminal cases were closed in one week by the agency, Glavkom reports.

This surge in anti-corruption activity coincided with a public statement by the new Prosecutor General, Ruslan Kravchenko, about his intention to intervene in certain cases that NABU had been investigating for years.

“In such cases, I will raise questions and possibly create a joint investigative group with other employees,” said Kravchenko.

For comparison: in January 2025, NABU did not report about the number of cases brought to a conclusion. According to the Center for Countering Corruption, the agency completed one in May and three in March, Texty reported. 

Billion-dollar fraud at PrivatBank

Finally, NABU completed the investigation of one of the largest cases involving the embezzlement of over $225 million from PrivatBank before its nationalization. According to the investigation, the money was funneled through a scheme of fictitious loans registered to controlled entities.

The case involves six suspects, including oligarch Ihor Kolomoisky, who has been in custody since 2023.

Undeclared assets of AMCU head

Pavlo Kyrylenko, head of the Antimonopoly Committee, is charged with failing to declare significant property, including several apartments in Kyiv and Uzhhorod, a residential house of over 220 sq.m. near Kyiv, two land plots, two garage boxes, six parking spaces, three non-residential premises totaling over 190 sq.m., and a BMW X3 car. Additionally, a separate case regarding Kyrylenko’s alleged illegal enrichment amounting to over $1.75 million is under review and has already been transferred to the High Anti-Corruption Court.

Fictitious rulings for draft dodgers in Odesa Oblast

Regional judges systematically issued fake rulings allowing men to avoid mobilization. The most common reason was the status of “sole parent.” According to the investigation, $3,500 was charged for such rulings. A total of 1,040 similar rulings were issued over the past year.

$300,000 for impunity

Another case was completed, and this time against an SBU officer who, according to the investigation, demanded $300,000 for destroying materials related to the illegal smuggling of men abroad. If refused, he threatened to initiate criminal prosecution under more serious charges.

Masked men appeared at anti-corruption demonstrations in Kyiv Thursday evening, carrying inflammatory signs targeting President Volodymyr Zelenskyy personally—exactly 24 hours after Ukrainian intelligence warned that Russia would deploy provocateurs to exploit the crisis.

The timing wasn’t coincidental. Defense Intelligence had warned Wednesday that “Kremlin agents are actively studying the internal situation” to weaponize protests against the law that subordinates Ukraine’s anti-corruption bodies to the Prosecutor General’s Office.

When the real protesters left, others appeared

The incident unfolded around evening as legitimate demonstrators wrapped up their third day of protests against Law No. 12414. What happened next looked like textbook destabilization.

Masked individuals emerged with signs reading “Ukraine is not Kvartal! Ukrainians are not slaves!” “Killers of democracy traitors of Ukraine,” and “Heroes are dying for Ukraine and these two are destroying it!”—directly targeting Zelenskyy and his chief of staff Andriy Yermak, according to footage captured by a Euromaidan Press correspondent.

View this post on Instagram

A post shared by Euromaidan Press (@euromaidanpress)

Legitimate protesters had focused on defending institutions: “Hands off NABU and SAP!” and “The lost generation wants democracy.” These newcomers turned it into a vitriolic attack on the country’s leadership.

View this post on Instagram

A post shared by Euromaidan Press (@euromaidanpress)

The power concentration driving protest anger

Why target Zelenskyy and Yermak specifically? The anti-corruption law represents broader concerns about power centralization during wartime.

When investigators began targeting Zelenskyy’s closest associates—including Oleksiy Chernyshov, the only Cabinet minister invited to Zelenskyy’s COVID birthday party, and business partner Tymur Mindych from Kvartal 95—the response was to subordinate the investigators rather than allow the process to continue.

The law effectively places NABU and SAPO under the Prosecutor General’s control, ending a decade of institutional independence. The protesters aren’t calling for Zelenskyy’s removal—they want the law repealed while maintaining effective war leadership. Most Ukrainians still oppose holding elections while fighting Russia. Their primary concern remains winning the war.

That’s precisely what makes this moment valuable to Moscow. The Kremlin hopes to exploit these real institutional tensions to destabilize Zelenskyy’s government entirely.

Explore further

Explained: why Ukraine nuked its own anti-corruption agencies

Surgical timing raises questions

Witness Mladena Kachurets documented the evening’s events. The suspicious activity began about 10 minutes before an air raid alert—perfect timing for dramatic effect.

“Masked individuals gathered the remaining protesters around them and delivered some kind of recorded speech,” she wrote. Multiple distractions played out simultaneously. While media focused on MP Maryana Bezuhla giving comments, “behind her was a verbal altercation between two young men, drawing part of the attention away.”

Then came the crescendo. When the air raid alert sounded, “the masked individuals demonstratively lit flares—an impressive picture, you’ll agree.”

Classic Russian influence operation

The provocateurs’ work didn’t end with the flares. Multiple Russian media outlets, starting from TASS, quickly fabricated coverage, with headlines like “Protesters in Kyiv called Zelenskyy and Yermak ‘traitors of Ukraine'” appearing the next day.

“They unfurled posters with images of Zelenskyy and Yermak, accompanied by inscriptions: ‘Killers of democracy – traitors of Ukraine’ and ‘Dictators.’ The posters also indicated that ‘these two’ are destroying the country, and ‘Ukrainians are not slaves,’” TASS reported on the provocateurs.

They cited Strana.ua, a pro-Russian media outlet that Ukraine sanctioned in 2021, as their source without providing actual links to any such article. Strana indeed reported on the event, on their Telegram channel, using a video by UNIAN with a comment presenting this as legitimate sentiments of the protesters.

The catch is that Ukrainian media, sensing Russian hybrid warfare operations from a mile away, either did not report on the men or reported them as provocateurs. Even the opposition 5 Kanal tweeted the video with a comment “provocative action” and followed up with a comment from the organizers that dismissed the burned Yermak and Zelenskyy portraits as a “provocation.”

The UNIAN video that Strana.ua shared the video with this comment: “At a protest in Kyiv, a group of planted provocateurs are lighting flares to the sound of air raid sirens. It looks like these uninvited guests are clearly and openly staging a photo op. Makes you wonder who needs this footage besides Russian propaganda—and who’s pulling the strings?”

What unraveled in the backyard of the President’s Office in Kyiv on 24 July was a classic Russian influence operation. Its aim was to fabricate a virtual reality inside the heads of Russians to validate the propaganda narratives driving Russia’s war—that Ukrainians want this, because they don’t support Zelenskyy anyway.

The inflammatory signs calling Zelenskyy a “dictator” and “traitor” now circulate in Russian information space—manufacturing evidence that Ukraine is fragmenting internally to validate Moscow’s narrative that its invasion “liberates” Ukrainians from their government.

We’ve seen multiple examples of how these operations work in the Surkov Leaks, a collection of Vladimir Putin’s gray cardinal Vladislav Surkov, who worked to destabilize Ukraine from within after the Euromaidan revolution with hybrid warfare means. So far, it appears that the operation has influenced solely Russians, as the incendiary narrative of “down with the dictators” proved too radical for Ukrainians.

But that doesn’t mean that the Kremlin won’t keep trying and finding other ways to mess with the minds of Ukrainians—and anybody else gullible enough to fall for the Kremlin’s information warfare.

Explore further

What Surkov’s hacked emails tell about Russia’s hybrid war against Ukraine

What happens next?

But here’s what actually happened to the supposed “dictator”: within three days of signing the controversial law, Zelenskyy submitted corrective legislation under intense public pressure.

“We heard the street,” he admitted, promising new legislation to restore anti-corruption agency independence. Parliament has scheduled July 31 to vote on the bill—though passage isn’t guaranteed.

Protesters haven’t declared victory yet. They’ve vowed to keep demonstrating until the corrective law actually passes and institutional independence is genuinely restored. The danger to democratic institutions was real, and vigilance remains essential.

But that’s precisely the point. The provocateur operation aimed to show Russians that Ukrainians reject their leadership and welcome “liberation.” Instead, it captured something different: a democracy under stress but still functioning. Public pressure forced a presidential retreat. Protests work. Institutions push back. Citizens stay engaged.

Ukraine’s democracy is imperfect and fragile—but it’s alive. The operation succeeded only in Russian information space, manufacturing the illusion of internal collapse for domestic consumption while the real Ukraine continued the messy, contentious work of democratic governance.

Polish Foreign Minister Radosław Sikorski has urged Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy not to abandon the fight against corruption amid ongoing concerns over the independence of Ukraine’s anti-corruption agencies, Poland’s Foreign Ministry reported on 24 July

“We conveyed to President Zelensky that the worst thing he could do now is turn away from the fight against corruption. Ukrainians are fighting for an honest, European state,“ Sikorski said, according to the Polish Foreign Ministry.

The ministry did not specify when or how this message was conveyed to the Ukrainian president.

The Polish announcement comes against the backdrop of legislative changes that threatened to make the National Anti-Corruption Bureau (NABU) and the Specialized Anti-Corruption Prosecutor’s Office (SAP) – the main anti-corruption agencies in Ukraine – dependent on the prosecutor general.

On 24 July, Zelenskyy submitted a bill to parliament containing provisions to ensure NABU and SAP independence. This move followed mass protest actions – the first since Russia’s full-scale invasion began – and extensive criticism from Ukraine’s Western partners, who warned of risks to European integration and financial support.

In response to the backlash, Zelenskyy, together with law enforcement agencies, has already prepared and submitted a new bill on “strengthening the independence of anti-corruption agencies.”

The legislative changes followed extensive searches of NABU and SAPO employees.

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy rejected media reports about his conversation with European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen regarding a law that limits the independence of anti-corruption agencies.

“I have not spoken with Ursula von der Leyen in recent days. Everything that was written about this, everything she supposedly told me, is fake. We did not have a conversation,” Zelenskyy announced during a meeting with journalists attended by Hromadske.

On 23 July, multiple media outlets cited European Commission spokesperson Guillaume Mercier, reporting that von der Leyen expressed concern to Zelenskyy about signing legislation that restricts the independence of the National Anti-Corruption Bureau (NABU) and the Specialized Anti-Corruption Prosecutor’s Office (SAPO). According to the spokesperson, the European Commission was “very concerned” about the law’s adoption.

The controversy stems from Zelenskyy’s decision on the evening of 22 July to sign legislation limiting NABU and SAPO’s independence. MP Anastasiia Radina said amendments were added that “make SAPO a decorative institution and provide for complete subordination of NABU and SAPO activities to the will of the prosecutor general.”

The presidential decision triggered mass protests in Kyiv and other Ukrainian cities. Demonstrators chanted “Veto the law,” “Return Europe,” and “Shame.”

In response to the backlash, Zelenskyy, together with law enforcement agencies, has already prepared and submitted a new bill on “strengthening the independence of anti-corruption agencies.”

The legislative changes followed extensive searches of NABU and SAPO employees. The Security Service of Ukraine (SBU) and the Office of the Prosecutor General announced they had uncovered Russian influence on NABU. Individual Bureau employees face charges including treason, illegal trade with Russia, and corrupt actions in the interests of oligarchs.

Zelenskyy maintains that “criminal proceedings should not last for years without legal verdicts,” apparently referring to accusations of NABU’s “ineffective work.” SBU chief Vasyl Maliuk said that the anti-corruption bureau “needs to be cleansed of Russian intelligence influence.”

NABU emphasizes that even if individual employees’ guilt is proven, this does not justify eliminating the independence of anti-corruption agencies.

The NABU and SAPO developments have drawn attention from Ukraine’s international partners. Over recent days, several politicians have appealed to Zelenskyy and Ukrainian authorities with public calls or personal communications, emphasizing the need to preserve anti-corruption institutions.

The National Anti-Corruption Bureau (NABU) and the Specialized Anti-Corruption Prosecutor’s Office (SAPO) have stated that the bill submitted by President Volodymyr Zelenskyy restores all guarantees of independence for these institutions.

“Bill No. 13533, submitted by the President of Ukraine as urgent, restores all procedural powers and guarantees of independence for NABU and SAPO,” the agencies report.

NABU and SAPO participated in drafting the text and are urging the Ukrainian Parliament to adopt the President’s initiative as soon as possible, both in the first reading and as a whole.

“This will help prevent threats to the criminal proceedings investigated by NABU and SAPO,” they emphasize. 

The work of Ukraine’s independent anti-corruption bodies is a key requirement for its path to European membership. It also affects the future of Ukraine’s aid, which mostly depends on Ukraine amid US President Donald Trump’s foreign policy. The bloc’s leaders have appealed to Kyiv with questions on the controversial law and urged transparency in reform.

After Zelenskyy decided to respond to the mass rallies and work on the law restoring the activities of NABU and SAPO, the EU viewed such actions positively.

Western trust under threat as Zelenskyy nears signing controversial law that crashes Ukraine’s anti-corruption system

At the same time, European Commission Spokesperson Stefan de Keersmaecker emphasized the need for continued efforts in this direction.

President Volodymyr Zelensky has approved a new draft law aimed at restoring the independence of Ukraine’s anti-corruption institutions, following days of nationwide protests, international criticism, and revelations of a Russian spy network operating within law enforcement agencies.

The new draft bill, submitted to Parliament on Thursday, is intended to replace the widely criticized Law No. 12414, which shifted control over key anti-corruption bodies—the National Anti-Corruption Bureau (NABU) and the Specialized Anti-Corruption Prosecutor’s Office (SAPO)—to the Prosecutor General’s Office.

“We need real tools, full independence for NABU and SAPO, and zero Russian influence,” Zelenskyy stated.

Although the full text of the bill has yet to be published, the president said it would guarantee the independence of anti-corruption institutions and strengthen Ukraine’s justice system during wartime.

Law No. 12414 sparks backlash

Passed on 22 July and signed into law two days later, Law No. 12414 allows the Prosecutor General to reassign investigations, close high-level cases, and override SAPO’s jurisdiction. Critics say it effectively places independent bodies under executive control, undermining judicial reform and Ukraine’s commitments to the EU.

Even some lawmakers from Zelenskyy’s own Servant of the People party expressed alarm. MP Anastasia Radina, head of the anti-corruption committee, warned the law could “destroy the country’s anti-corruption infrastructure.”

Protests and international alarm

Thousands of Ukrainians took to the streets in Kyiv, Lviv, and Dnipro, demanding the repeal of the law. The European Commission voiced concern, warning the law threatens Ukraine’s progress on transparency and could affect future EU assistance.

“These institutions are vital to fighting corruption and maintaining public trust,” said EU spokesperson Guillaume Mercier.

Spy scandal and high-level raids

The crisis escalated when Ukraine’s Security Service (SBU) and State Bureau of Investigations (SBI) uncovered a Russian spy network within anti-corruption and law enforcement bodies.

On 21 July, authorities conducted over 70 raids targeting current and former NABU employees:

• Ruslan Magamedrasulov, a senior detective, was arrested for allegedly leaking classified case materials to Russian intelligence and facilitating illegal exports to Russia.
• Viktor Husarov, a member of NABU’s elite D-2 unit, was charged with treason for allegedly passing sensitive files to Russia’s FSB via former Yanukovych-era official Dmytro Ivantsov. He remains in custody without bail.
• Authorities also issued charges against fugitive ex-MP Fedir Khrystenko, accused of coordinating sabotage efforts within NABU on behalf of the Kremlin.

NABU criticized the raids as excessive and legally questionable, warning that investigators from the SBU and SBI may have accessed confidential materials. Transparency International and G7 ambassadors condemned the actions as pressure on Ukraine’s last independent anti-corruption institution.

Concerns about legitimacy and effectiveness

Despite playing a central role in Ukraine’s reform narrative, anti-corruption bodies have faced longstanding criticism:

• Constitutional challenges: Between 2020 and 2022, the Constitutional Court struck down key provisions related to the formation and leadership of NABU, raising doubts about the legal basis for their operations.
• Limited outcomes: Although these agencies have pursued high-profile investigations, actual convictions—especially of senior officials—remain few.
• Jurisdictional overlap: Conflicts among NABU, SAPO, the National Agency for Corruption Prevention (NACP), and other institutions frequently lead to inefficiency and turf battles.
• Political influence: While these bodies are formally independent, their activities often reflect political dynamics—through control over appointments, budgets, and informal coordination by the Presidential Office or government.

These concerns don’t erase the institutions’ achievements but underscore the urgent need for deeper reform and stronger protections from political interference.

Zelenskyy’s course correction

Zelenskyy’s pivot toward a new legislative solution has been welcomed by NABU and SAPO, who pledged to assist in drafting a law that meets rule-of-law standards and reinforces institutional safeguards.

“We support legal solutions that enhance justice and eliminate legal risks,” NABU stated, also thanking civil society and international partners for ongoing support.

What comes next

Parliament is expected to review the new draft in the coming days. Whether it can undo the political fallout from Law No. 12414—and restore public trust—remains uncertain.

With active espionage threats and high stakes for Ukraine’s EU accession path, the independence and resilience of its anti-corruption architecture face a defining test.

The EU regards positively actions of the Ukrainian authorities addressing issues around the new anti-corruption law, UkrInform reports. At the same time, European Commission Spokesperson Stefan de Keersmaecker emphasizes the need for continued efforts in this direction.

Stefan de Keersmaecker says the EU welcomes the fact that Ukrainian authorities are taking measures and will cooperate to ensure the bloc’s concerns are addressed. He did not specify which concrete steps or deadlines are expected from Kyiv for a full resolution.

Editorial: Zelenskyy opens a second front—against his own people

Another European Commission Spokesperson Guillaume Mercier stresses that the further financial assistance and EU membership for Kyiv depends on its progress in transparency, judicial reform, and democratic governance.

He also says that the EU will continue to closely follow the situation, offering support to solve issues.

“We need to be sure that Ukraine has all necessary tools to fight corruption and that their independence is ensured,” Mercier claims.

Meanwhile, the EU says it does not link this issue to the stability of military support for Ukraine.

Before the legislative push, starting 21 July, the SBU security service and Prosecutor General’s Office carried out approximately 80 searches targeting 19 NABU staff across multiple oblasts. Employees were accused of state treason, illicit trade with Russia, and acting on behalf of oligarchs.

A birthday guest got indicted—so Ukraine dismantled a decade of reform

The State Bureau of Investigations simultaneously reopened dormant car crash cases involving NABU staff.

In addition, some sources speculated that the campaign may have been aimed at blocking an imminent indictment against Tymur Mindich, co-owner of Zelenskyy’s former media company Kvartal 95.

President Volodymyr Zelenskyy signed the law anyway.

Even as thousands of Ukrainians demonstrated in Kyiv, Lviv, and Dnipro—the first major protests against his government since Russia’s invasion—even as the European Union demanded explanations and G7 ambassadors expressed “serious concerns,” Ukraine’s president destroyed his country’s independent anti-corruption infrastructure with a single signature.

The reason was simple—and it reveals everything wrong with how Ukraine still operates.

Corruption investigators were closing in on Zelenskyy’s inner circle. Two men from his closest orbit faced charges: Oleksiy Chernyshov, the only Cabinet minister invited to Zelenskyy’s COVID birthday party, and Tymur Mindich, his business partner from the Kvartal 95 comedy studio.

Rather than let them face justice, Zelenskyy chose to eliminate the investigators— NABU and SAPO.

This matters because when anti-corruption agencies finally reached the president’s actual family—not just random officials, but his birthday party guests and business partners—Ukraine witnessed its first real test of whether it had outgrown the post-Soviet patronage trap.

The answer came swift and brutal: personal loyalty won, institutional accountability lost.

The family under investigation

Chernyshov wasn’t just any minister. During Ukraine’s strict COVID-19 lockdown in 2021, when gatherings were banned, Zelenskyy invited only a handful of intimates to celebrate his birthday. Chernyshov was the sole government official present. Ukrainska Pravda reported this marked him as part of Zelenskyy’s inner circle, someone beyond typical political appointees.

The relationship runs deeper than professional. Sources indicate close family friendships between the Zelenskyy and Chernyshov families, with connections predating the full-scale invasion. Despite lacking infrastructure experience, Chernyshov has held four high-level positions across six years.

When no suitable position existed, parliament created an entirely new Ministry of National Unity specifically for him.

In June, NABU charged Chernyshov with organizing a massive land scheme, allegedly manipulating state transfers to benefit developers in exchange for apartments worth $346,000 at artificially low prices — costing the state over $24 million.

Tymur Mindich represents Zelenskyy’s pre-political past as co-owner of Kvartal 95, the entertainment company that launched his career. ZN.ua describes him as “one of the main consultants to the head of the President’s Office Andriy Yermak” and a “long-time business partner of President Volodymyr Zelenskyy.”

Investigators were preparing charges against Mindich himself, according to sources who told Ukrainska Pravda. When the heat intensified, MP Yaroslav Zhelezniak reported that Mindich fled Ukraine and “will likely not return in the near future.”

Here’s what makes this different from typical Ukrainian corruption scandals: these weren’t random officials caught stealing. These were Zelenskyy’s actual inner circle — the people who got him to power and stayed there with him.

Explore further

“I defended Zelenskyy against Trump’s dictatorship accusations. Now I can’t,” says Ukraine’s top corruption fighter

The parliamentary blitzkrieg

When corruption charges reached these core members of Zelenskyy’s circle, the response was swift and systematic. The destruction happened through brazen procedural violations that would have embarrassed even Viktor Yanukovych.

On 21 July, Security Service forces conducted 70 simultaneous raids on anti-corruption officials, claiming to expose “Russian moles” in NABU.

The numbers exposed the theater immediately: 70 searches produced five charges, three involving old traffic accidents from 2021-2023. “Mathematics is an exact science,” observed Andriy Borovyk, director of Transparency International Ukraine: if there was a real reason for them, they should have produced more substantial evidence.

Twenty-four hours later came what MP Yaroslav Zhelezniak called a “blitzkrieg” against anti-corruption institutions. They disguised the attack as humanitarian legislation. MP Maksym Buzhanskyi introduced a bill about missing persons procedures.

MPs had roughly an hour to review amendments that fundamentally transformed Ukraine’s corruption oversight. The atmosphere was celebratory. “After the vote, I heard a phrase from one of them,” Zhelezniak recalled. “It was Maksym Buzhanskyi… This phrase was: ‘This football I like.'”

Parliament voted 263-13 to subordinate NADB and the Specialized Anti-Corruption Prosecutor’s Office to a presidential appointee.

The message was clear: investigate mid-level officials all you want, but the president’s “family” remains off-limits.

The comedy studio government

But this wasn’t just about protecting two friends. The appointments reveal how Zelenskyy systematically recreated the exact loyalty-based system he campaigned against—just with different people.

After Zelenskyy’s presidential victory in 2019, over 30 former Kvartal 95 employees and their associates moved into government positions. Ukrainian analysts call it a “comedy studio government.”

Radio Svoboda documented the network: Serhiy Shefir, Zelenskyy’s co-owner of Kvartal 95, became First Assistant to the President. Andriy Yermak, a film producer who met Zelenskyy in 2011, rose to Head of the Presidential Office — what The Washington Post describes as “arguably the most powerful chief of staff in Ukraine’s history.”

The most catastrophic appointment was Ivan Bakanov, Zelenskyy’s childhood friend from Kryvyi Rih and Kvartal 95’s former lawyer. Despite having zero intelligence experience, Zelenskyy made him head of the Security Service (SBU) in August 2019.

Under Bakanov’s watch, the SBU appointed Oleksandr Kulinich to a critical southern defense position despite Kulinich being legally barred from state service — the man graduated from Moscow’s FSB academy in 1994. When Russia invaded on 24 February 2022, this intelligence breach proved fatal. Russian forces advanced 150 kilometers in march formation, bypassing Ukrainian positions. Kherson fell in exactly seven days.

The Washington Post reported that 651 criminal proceedings were registered regarding treason and collaboration by law enforcement officials, with over 60 from the prosecutor’s office and the SBU working against Ukraine in occupied territories.

This is why loyalty-based governance can’t coexist with institutional accountability. When you staff government based on personal relationships rather than merit, you create a state that can’t tolerate oversight — because accountability exposes the incompetence and corruption that loyalty-first appointments inevitably produce.

What Ukraine lost

NABU and SAPO were created after the 2014 Euromaidan Revolution as Ukraine’s first real separation of powers. Their independence was a requirement for EU membership negotiations, visa-free travel to Europe, and billions in international aid.

Under the new law, the prosecutor general can transfer any NABU investigation to other agencies, issue binding instructions to detectives, close cases at defense request, and delegate SAP’s powers to other prosecutors.

“If the anti-corruption structure is embedded in a politicized law enforcement system, it won’t work,” MP Yaroslav Yurchyshyn explained. “It won’t present suspicions to ministers, advisors, or deputy heads of the President’s Office, or deputies.”

The strategic miscalculation

The destruction provides perfect ammunition for those questioning Ukraine aid. European reactions came swiftly. European Commissioner Marta Kos called the law “a serious step back,” warning that “independent bodies like NABU and SAPO are essential for Ukraine’s EU path.”

European Pravda reported that Brussels had secretly scheduled 18 July to open Ukraine’s first EU negotiating cluster, but abandoned the plan after Ukraine’s anti-corruption crackdown.

The timing wasn’t coincidental. American rule-of-law programs had withdrawn from Ukraine in February and March 2025, and European officials were on summer vacation. Ukrainian authorities misread signals from the Trump administration as permission to attack democratic institutions.

Putin originally justified his invasion partly by claiming Ukraine was establishing anti-corruption institutions with foreign experts. As Kaleniuk pointed out, “Ukrainian MPs are now making Putin’s argument for him.”

MP Zhelezniak recalled Putin’s February 2022 speech: “So he named one of the reasons why he’s starting war—the presence of independent anti-corruption bodies. And we liquidated them today.”

Explore further

EU had a secret plan to bypass Orbán. Zelenskyy blew it up instead.

When Ukrainians said no

But Ukrainian society had other ideas. Mass protests erupted across Ukraine on 22 July — the first major demonstrations against Zelenskyy’s government since Russia’s invasion. The Washington Post reported thousands flooded central Kyiv and massed in cities across the war-torn country, by far the largest demonstrations since Russia’s 2022 invasion.

Protesters chanted “Get your hands off NABU and SAP” and “Veto the law,” while drivers honked in support. Even facing this unprecedented resistance, Zelenskyy signed the law anyway.

The next morning, he scrambled to gather law enforcement and anti-corruption agency heads for emergency meetings. On 23 July, he promised to introduce new legislation preserving anti-corruption independence. Parliament’s summer recess was canceled for an emergency session.

Meanwhile, 48 MPs began preparing a Constitutional Court challenge.

The maturity test

This was Ukraine’s first major test of whether it had outgrown the post-Soviet patronage trap that destroyed every previous government. The entertainment industry veterans who took power in 2019 tried to replicate the same loyalty-first system that had dominated Ukrainian politics for decades. When independent institutions threatened their inner circle, they attempted to destroy those institutions.

But Ukrainian civil society had matured during three decades of independence and intensified during three years of war. The massive protests forced Zelenskyy into damage control, demonstrating that Ukraine’s democratic evolution had outpaced its leaders’ authoritarian instincts.

The president who campaigned against the system of untouchables had created his own version. When Ukrainians recognized the pattern, they took to the streets to defend the institutions he had promised to protect. In that response lies hope that Ukraine’s democratic future remains stronger than its authoritarian past.

Explore further

Editorial: Zelenskyy opens a second front—against his own people

President Volodymyr Zelenskyy signed a law Tuesday dismantling Ukraine’s anti-corruption agencies.

The timing was disastrous: Brussels had secretly scheduled 18 July to open Ukraine’s first EU negotiating cluster, bypassing Hungary entirely, but abandoned the plan after Ukraine’s anti-corruption crackdown, according to European Pravda sources within EU institutions.

Zelenskyy knew about the plan. He’d been personally involved in discussions with Danish officials and EU leadership since late June, European Pravda reported, citing unnamed European officials. But instead of supporting this diplomatic breakthrough, Ukraine systematically undermined its reform credentials by rejecting the Bureau of Economic Security selection results, conducting searches of activist Vitalii Shabunin’s home, and finally signing the law gutting NABU and SAPO independence.

Brussels was ready to break its own rules for Ukraine

The Danish EU presidency and European Commission had crafted something unprecedented: legal measures to sideline Hungarian PM Viktor Orbán, who had systematically blocked Ukraine’s accession, completely.

Bloomberg reported in May that member states pushed the Commission to explore options for opening Ukraine’s first negotiating chapter despite Hungarian objections.

The breakthrough insight: while unanimity is required to start and complete EU accession negotiations, sources told Bloomberg it’s not a legal requirement for opening individual clusters. The Commission informed member states that it intended to send the European Council a first report on starting cluster discussions with Ukraine and Moldova.

After years of Hungarian obstruction, 26 member states were willing to risk institutional precedent.

The “parallel negotiations” mechanism

The mechanism was elegant: conduct “parallel negotiations” where 26 EU states would negotiate with Ukraine while Moldova received formal recognition. When Moldova opened negotiating clusters, the 26 states would issue statements confirming Ukraine had completed the same work and that only Hungary’s veto prevented legal advancement.

• Inter-Governmental Conferences: The Danish presidency was prepared to convene working bodies pivotal to enlargement that don’t require Hungarian consent
• Political weight: Though legally non-binding for Ukraine, these would carry enormous political significance
• Synchronized progress: Ukraine’s advancement would be coordinated with Moldova’s formal recognition

The Danish presidency, which described enlargement as a “geopolitical necessity,” had exhausted diplomatic options with Hungary.

Hungary systematic obstruction

Orbán had forced Brussels into this position through relentless obstruction. After blocking progress during Hungary’s 2024 EU presidency, he staged a “national consultation” where 95% of 2.3 million participants opposed Ukraine membership—though an opposition poll found 58% Hungarian support for Ukraine’s EU bid.

Zelenskyy met with Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen during the NATO summit in The Hague. He flew to Denmark on 3 July for private negotiations. Final details were hammered out in Rome on 10 July. Everything was set for the 18 July ceremony in Brussels.

European officials were prepared to risk institutional precedent. Ukraine chose that exact moment to implode its reform credentials.

How Ukraine sabotaged itself

The self-sabotage unfolded in a devastating sequence:

• 9 July: The Ukrainian government rejected the winner of a transparent, EU-supported competition to head the Bureau of Economic Security. The government simply overturned the selection results with no explanation.
• 11 July: Law enforcement raided anti-corruption activist Vitalii Shabunin’s home without a court warrant. They also searched the mother of fallen Hero of Ukraine pilot Andrii “Juice” Pilshchykov simply because Shabunin had briefly stayed there.
• 14 July: Deputy Prime Minister Olha Stefanishyna announced her resignation as Ukraine’s chief EU negotiator—replacing a negotiator at such a sensitive moment gave Brussels another reason to pause.

Denmark quietly abandoned the 18 July proposal. European Pravda sources reported EU officials asking: “WTF? What is going on?”

Brussels draws the line

EU Enlargement Commissioner Marta Kos warned Deputy Prime Minister Taras Kachka that the anti-corruption law would have “serious consequences for the entire negotiation process.” Some member states now believe “it would have been better not to rush into opening the first cluster.”

European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen called Zelenskyy directly to express “strong concerns.” Brussels views this as democratic backsliding comparable to Georgia’s retreat.

Economic consequences mounting

The OECD warned that undermining anti-corruption agencies will hurt:

• Defense investments in Ukraine
• Reconstruction funding from international partners
• Future borrowing capacity as creditors reassess risk

But European officials doubt the Presidential Office takes these warnings seriously—they are accustomed to Brussels making threats without decisive action.

Explore further

Zelenskyy’s scandalous law weakening anti-graft watchdogs takes effect (updated)

Putin wins without trying

Anti-corruption architect Daria Kaleniuk pointed out the bitter irony: Zelenskyy “just gave Putin his best argument.”

Putin’s original justification for war was that Ukraine was “losing sovereignty to foreign partners, establishing anti-corruption institutions with foreign experts.” Ukrainian MPs are now making Putin’s argument for him.

Ukraine will fall behind Moldova in EU accession talks. The “decoupling” Brussels tried to avoid becomes inevitable—not because of Hungarian obstruction, but because of Ukraine own choices. As one European official noted: “Ukraine has done the dirty work instead of Viktor Orbán.”

What the law actually does

The legislation Zelenskyy signed grants the Prosecutor General sweeping authority to:

• Reassign NABU investigations to other agencies
• Issue binding instructions to anti-corruption bodies
• Unilaterally close high-level corruption cases
• Control SAPO operations through mandatory coordination

Transparency International Ukraine called it the dismantling of “prosecutorial independence.”

The timing was particularly damaging. Just as European officials prepared to risk institutional precedent for Ukraine’s benefit, Kyiv chose to demolish its reform credentials.

The European Commission has expressed deep concern over Ukraine’s adoption of legislation subordinating the National Anti-Corruption Bureau (NABU) and the Specialized Anti-Corruption Prosecutor’s Office (SAPO) to the Prosecutor General, with top EU officials requesting explanations from Kyiv.

This comes one day after parliament passed law #12414 on 22 July, which eliminated the independence of these anti-corruption institutions. President Zelenskyy signed the law the same day, despite public opposition, who came out to protest and call for the law to be vetoed.

European Commission (EC) spokesperson Guillaume Mercier told Ukrainska Pravda that the EC is “extremely concerned about the adoption of the draft that significantly weakens the powers of Ukrainian anti-corruption institutions.”

“Both institutions, NABU and SAPO, are widely considered cornerstones of the rule of law in Ukraine. They play a key role in Ukraine’s reform agenda and must be independent to fight corruption and maintain public trust,” Mercier said.

“Respect for the rule of law and the fight against corruption are fundamental principles of the EU. Ukraine as a candidate country is expected to fully comply with these standards. There can be no compromises here,” the spokesperson added.

Following the law’s passage, European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen contacted Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, expressing “strong concerns” and requesting explanations.

European Parliament Deputy Daniel Freund from the Greens party, who was in Kyiv when the law was adopted, called it “a clear breach of trust” and warned that “the Ukrainian government is jeopardizing the EU accession process.”

“The EU very much wants to help Ukraine. But it cannot continue to transfer money if the country is moving in the wrong direction,” Freund told Spiegel, according to European Pravda.

European Commissioner for Economic Affairs Valdis Dombrovskis emphasized that financial aid to Kyiv and its progress toward EU membership depend on the independence of anti-corruption institutions.

Ukraine’s response

Vice Prime Minister for European and Euro-Atlantic Integration Taras Kachka assured European Commission representative Gert Jan Koopman that reforms necessary for Ukraine’s EU accession “remain an unchanged priority, despite discussions around NABU and SAPO independence.”

Kachka informed about President Zelenskyy’s meeting with all heads of law enforcement and anti-corruption agencies. He added that the government “takes issues related to anti-corruption very seriously” and is conducting “active work to collect and analyze opinions and positions of all stakeholders regarding the law.”

President Volodymyr Zelenskyy announced plans to submit a draft law to the Verkhovna Rada that will restore independence to the National Anti-Corruption Bureau (NABU) and the Specialized Anti-Corruption Prosecutor’s Office (SAPO), according to his evening video address on 23 July.

The announcement comes one day after parliament passed law #12414 on 22 July, which eliminated the independence of these anti-corruption institutions.

The Rada supported the legislation with 263 votes, and Speaker Ruslan Stefanchuk signed it the same day, despite calls from NABU chief Semen Kryvonos urging the president not to sign it. Zelenskyy ultimately signed the controversial law the same day as well.

“I held many meetings with government officials, as well as officials from the Ministry of Internal Affairs, Security Service of Ukraine, National Anti-Corruption Bureau, State Bureau of Investigation, Specialized Anti-Corruption Prosecutor’s Office, National Agency for Corruption Prevention and the Office of the Prosecutor General,” Zelenskyy said in his address.

Zelenskyy revealed that institutional leaders will jointly propose an action plan with concrete steps to strengthen the rule of law in Ukraine.

“Of course, everyone heard what people are saying these days – on social networks, to each other, on the streets. This is all not in vain. We analyzed all concerns, all aspects of what should be changed and what needs to be activated,” the president said.

The promised legislation will serve as “a response that will ensure strength to the law enforcement system,” according to Zelenskyy.

“There will be no Russian influence or interference in the activities of law enforcement agencies. And very importantly: all norms for the independence of anti-corruption institutions will be there,” the president said.

Zelenskyy expects concrete proposals from heads of law enforcement and anti-corruption agencies. He described the upcoming initiative as a presidential draft law that will be implemented “within our state transformation strategy.” The controversial law’s passage sparked protests in major Ukrainian cities.

Against the backdrop of these events, rallies against the adoption of the scandalous law were held in major Ukrainian cities. On 23 July, protests have been announced in at least 17 Ukrainian cities.

In Kyiv, there are at least 2 times more people today as on the first day, 22 July, when Zelenskyy signed the law. Participants of the protest in Kyiv chant “Power to the people!” and “Hands off NABU and SAPO.”

The protest signs in Kyiv yesterday said everything: “My father did not die for this.”

When Ukrainians took to the streets 11 years ago in Ukraine’s Euromaidan Revolution, they had simple demands: a country where one would want to live. A place where everyone is treated equally under the law and justice is not an empty word.

Yesterday, in 72 hours, Ukraine’s government destroyed those hopes by dismantling what took a decade to build.

The rushed adoption hidden in another law, the dirty tactics pressuring MPs, the ongoing investigations against Zelenskyy’s inner circle, the flimsy accusations against Ukraine’s anti-corruption organs invoking old traffic accidents, leave no mistake: this legal theater was a planned assault on the system of checks and balances created since Euromaidan.

The significance of this system for Ukraine is profound. Since Aristotle’s time, dividing power into legislative, executive, and judiciary has separated democratic governance from monarchy. In Ukraine, it was largely theater—and each revolution rose against increasing authoritarianism.

NABU and SAPO, whatever their flaws, were the first real separation of power in Ukraine. They could be improved, made more effective. But gutting their independence isn’t about effectiveness—it’s about destroying Ukraine’s capacity to check those in power and resist authoritarianism.

This is what’s happening now. The young people who flooded Ukrainian cities in protest are defending republicanism against monarchy. This desire sets Ukrainians apart from Russia and Belarus—the promise of European integration sealed with the blood of Euromaidan protesters who died for freedom.

This promise of functioning democracy, the best guarantee of dignified life, drove Ukraine since 2014 to reject the Russian path where personal freedom gets discarded and authority worshipped. It drives Ukrainians defending their land against the Russian invasion.

That promise had concrete stakes. NABU independence was the condition for visa-free travel, EU candidacy talks, and every step toward European integration. Those foundations just crumbled.

Ukrainians on the frontline didn’t die for Zelenskyy’s power to concentrate authority and enrich himself. They died for their families, for a future where their children wouldn’t choose between dignity and survival.

Power is intoxicating. It is a bitter irony that Zelenskyy became the villain from his own TV show—the corrupt president enjoying the impunity he once campaigned against.

He signed the law with record speed, buried the attack in photo-ops, ignored thousand-strong protests in his evening address.

Since today, a second front has opened in Ukraine—between those preserving Ukraine’s democratic future and those sacrificing it for personal protection. This fight determines whether Ukraine’s victory over Russia means anything, or whether we become the corrupt autocracy we once fought to escape.

Zelenskyy can still reverse course—withdraw his signature, restore what was broken. But each day this law stands, Ukraine moves closer to becoming the country it once fought to escape.

The choice between republic and monarchy remains his to make.

History is watching.

Russian intelligence services are attempting to destabilize Ukraine amid the anti-corruption crisis, Ukraine’s Defense Intelligence warns. Kremlin agents are actively studying the internal situation in order to exploit the wave of protests linked to the adoption of the new law, which enables control over independent anti-corruption bodies. 

According to the agency, Russia’s goal is to undermine Ukraine’s ability to resist full-scale military aggression and to discredit the country on the international stage. 

“Russia intends to discredit Ukraine in the eyes of the world to weaken or destroy Western support for the armed struggle against the aggressor,” the Ukrainian Defense Intelligence says.

Inside Ukraine, the Kremlin sees an opportunity to capitalize on public discontent to stir chaos and polarize society. This is not just about propaganda — intelligence warns of possible provocations orchestrated directly from Moscow.

“To escalate the protests, deepen polarization, and plunge Ukrainian society into chaos… provocations inspired by Moscow are not ruled out,” the agency cautions.

The Defense Intelligence stresses that the country is in the midst of a genocidal war, in which Russia employs not only weapons but also manipulations, disinformation, and internal sabotage.

“The Ukrainian nation is living through a genocidal war in which the aggressor is trying by all means to destroy our state,” the agency emphasizes.

On 22 July, Lieutenant General Kyrylo Budanov, the head of the Ukrainian Defense Intelligence, called for internal disagreements to be resolved through open dialogue.

“Ukrainian history has taught us, a nation loses when it is torn apart by internal strife. We face a common misfortune and a common enemy. That is why internal disagreements should be resolved through open dialogue to achieve a single shared goal, to defend our country,” he claimed.

He added that he is confident: Ukraine will be saved by strong armed forces and institutions.

Ukrainian deputies prepare a counterstrike against a new controversial law in the Constitutional Court. After President Volodymyr Zelenskyy signed the controversial law narrowing the powers of the National Anti-Corruption Bureau (NABU) and the Specialized Anti-Corruption Prosecutor’s Office (SAP), MPs from the Holos parliamentary faction announced the start of collecting signatures for an appeal to the court.

“In fact, the only thing that can be done now to fix the situation is to strike down this law in the Constitutional Court,” says MP Yaroslav Zhelezniak, emphasizing that the parliamentary procedure was violated during the consideration of the bill.

He believes the initiative is entirely realistic: “We will need 45 signatures from deputies… but I think we can still find that many in the Ukrainian Parliament.”

Protesters have already taken to the streets in Kyiv, Lviv, Dnipro, and other cities. They are demanding the repeal of the law, which they believe will bring the country to the era of former President Victor Yanukovych, when the government controlled investigations, the prosecutor’s office, and the courts.

The morning after signing the law, Zelenskyy gathered the heads of all key law enforcement and anti-corruption agencies, including NABU Director Semen Kryvonos, SAP Head Oleksandr Klymenko, SBU Chief Vasyl Maliuk, and Prosecutor Kravchenko.

The president stated that “criminal proceedings must not last for years without verdicts” and said that “we all hear what society is saying.” According to him, a joint plan to protect public interests must be ready within two weeks, followed by an in-depth working meeting with all sides the week after. 

A law curbing anti-graft watchdogs has officially taken effect in Ukraine, triggering public protest and sharp criticism from legal observers and European officials. Submitted by the ruling Servant of the People party, which holds a majority in the Verkhovna Rada, the bill was passed on 22 July and signed into law by President Volodymyr Zelenskyy that same evening — a rare instance of rapid enactment.

Key anti-graft watchdogs stripped of independence

Law No. 12414 was officially published on 23 July in the Rada’s Holos Ukrainy newspaper, granting it full legal force. As a result, the prosecutor general now has the authority to reassign investigations from the National Anti-Corruption Bureau of Ukraine (NABU) to other law enforcement bodies, issue binding written instructions to NABU detectives, serve as the effective head of the Specialized Anti-Corruption Prosecutor’s Office (SAPO), and unilaterally close top-level corruption cases.

In addition, SAPO’s procedural autonomy is severely curtailed. The law removes the agency’s ability to determine NABU’s jurisdiction in exceptional cases, strips its head of the right to resolve jurisdictional disputes, and prevents SAPO leadership from altering appellate or cassation complaints submitted by its prosecutors. Transparency International Ukraine stated that the law is an attack on anti-graft safeguards and warned it dismantles the foundations of prosecutorial independence. 

Explore further

Abuse of power: Ukraine’s Civil Anti-Corruption Council urges Zelenskyy to veto new law undermining anti-corruption system

EU sounds alarm

The law was authored and pushed forward by MP Maksym Buzhanskyi, a member of Zelenskyy’s Servant of the People party. It introduces sweeping amendments to Ukraine’s Criminal Code and bypassed standard parliamentary procedures. Critics argue it violated Article 116 of the Verkhovna Rada’s regulations by radically altering the subject of the original legislation.

EU Commissioner for Enlargement Marta Kos said she was “seriously concerned” over the Rada vote.

“The dismantling of key safeguards protecting NABU’s independence is a serious step back. Independent bodies, like NABU [and] SAPO, are essential for [Ukraine’s] EU path. Rule of Law remains in the very center of EU accession negotiations,” she wrote on X.

Cities erupt in protest after Rada passes the law

The law’s passage sparked mass protests in Kyiv and multiple other Ukrainian cities including Lviv, Dnipro, Odesa, and Ivano-Frankivsk late on 22 July. Demonstrators accused Zelenskyy and parliament of dismantling Ukraine’s most trusted anti-corruption structures. 

Explore further

From Lviv to Odesa: Ukrainians take to streets to save anti-corruption agencies

Zelenskyy offers no explanation beyond ‘Russian influence’

Despite public backlash and mounting criticism, Zelenskyy signed the bill into law, giving only a vague and unsupported rationale. In a video address on 22 July, he said that “anti-corruption infrastructure will work, but must be cleared of Russian influence.” He added that justice must become “more visible” and said cases involving fugitive officials should finally be pursued. However, he gave no details on how curbing anti-graft watchdogs would aid in countering Russian infiltration.

Intelligence raids, spy accusations, and political timing

Before the legislative push, starting 21 July, the SBU security service and Prosecutor General’s Office carried out approximately 80 searches targeting 19 NABU staff across multiple oblasts. Employees were accused of state treason, illicit trade with Russia, and acting on behalf of oligarchs. The State Bureau of Investigations simultaneously reopened dormant car crash cases involving NABU staff.

SAPO expressed concern that the SBU and prosecutor’s office had accessed covert investigative data, risking the exposure of classified operations. They warned that SBU actions could disrupt ongoing probes by revealing details of undercover measures.

Why watchdog independence mattered

NABU and SAPO were formed in 2015 after the 2014 Revolution of Dignity to combat entrenched elite corruption. NABU was empowered to investigate top-tier officials including the president (if no longer in office), ministers, MPs, judges, and high-ranking bureaucrats. SAPO was designed to prosecute those cases autonomously, free from political oversight. The agencies’ independence was a central requirement for Ukraine’s EU integration.

Tatarigami, a prominent Ukrainian analyst, wrote that the law creates mechanisms to derail or redirect any investigation that threatens presidential allies — not only under Zelenskyy but under any future president. He warned that the logic of citing “Russian influence” as a justification is flawed, since agencies like the SBU have themselves been infiltrated by Russian agents in the past.

Update: OECD warns Ukraine risks losing defense investment

According to European Pravda, the OECD has warned Kyiv that the law undermining NABU and SAPO could jeopardize both Ukraine’s OECD accession and its appeal to international investors.

In a letter dated 22 July, Julia Fromholz, head of the OECD Anti-Corruption Division, told the president’s office that law No. 12414 weakens anti-corruption safeguards and risks breaching Ukraine’s obligations under OECD standards.

New draft law aims to cancel restrictions on NABU and SAPO

A new bill has been prepared in the Verkhovna Rada to cancel the restrictions on NABU and SAPO introduced by the controversial law No. 12414 adopted on 22 July. The initial law limits the powers of Ukraine’s anti-corruption bodies under the pretext of regulating wartime investigations into missing persons.

The timing was surgical. As security services arrested their own officials for taking $300,000 bribes from draft dodgers, Ukraine’s parliament voted to gut the very agencies designed to catch such corruption.

On 22 July 2025, lawmakers passed Bill No. 12414 by 263 votes, effectively ending a decade of post-Euromaidan anti-corruption reforms. The legislation transfers control of corruption investigations from independent agencies—NABU and SAPO—to the politically appointed Prosecutor General.

The vote came one day after authorities conducted over 70 searches against NABU employees, citing alleged Russian intelligence links that critics say provided convenient cover for the institutional demolition.

This matters because Ukraine built these institutions specifically to investigate officials close to the presidency—the very people now beyond reach. NABU had been investigating Deputy Prime Minister Oleksiy Chernyshov in land schemes, defense sector corruption, and cases involving Zelenskyy associates. With the Prosecutor General—who reports directly to presidential chief of staff Andriy Yermak—now controlling all corruption cases, those investigations effectively end.

Western partners have expressed concern, with G7 ambassadors planning to raise the issue with Ukrainian officials. EU financial support depends on democratic governance progress—progress that this law reverses. The European Commission’s Ukraine Facility and IMF loans were conditioned on maintaining independent anti-corruption institutions that no longer exist in any meaningful form.

For Daria Kaleniuk, this represents more than institutional rollback. The executive director of the Anti-Corruption Action Center, who helped design these agencies after Euromaidan, calls it Ukraine’s “Yanukovych moment”—a return to the system of untouchables that sparked the 2014 revolution.

In an exclusive interview with Euromaidan Press, she warns that Zelenskyy is creating the very conditions Putin uses to justify Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.

Political control over anti-corruption institutions

Euromaidan Press: Ukraine’s Parliament just passed a law putting all corruption investigations under one politically appointed prosecutor. Ukrainian activists like you are calling this a return to Yanukovych times. What does that comparison mean?

Daria Kaleniuk: It means that Prosecutor General Ruslan Kravchenko will control all investigations against top officials in the country. He will have access to all cases of the independent agencies NABU and SAPO.

He will be able to stop these cases, give orders on how to investigate or not investigate, change prosecutors, and take cases outside of NABU to give them to other agencies.

So it returns complete control to the prosecutor general, who is 100% loyal to the president, over justice in Ukraine. This is exactly what we were trying to move away from since the Revolution of Dignity.

During the Yanukovych period, he had a prosecutor general named Viktor Pshonka who safeguarded businesses and monopolies for Yanukovych and his associates. There was the so-called “family”—close family and friends of Yanukovych who controlled the most lucrative businesses in the country. No one could investigate them because the prosecutor general made sure they were untouchable.

We are coming back to the  era of untouchables in Ukraine.

If you are loyal to Zelenskyy, you will be untouchable and have access to lucrative contracts, especially in the defense sector where most Ukrainian taxpayer money is spent. You can steal, commit fraud, produce bad equipment, not deliver on time – and there will be no justice.

This is the  Yanukovych moment for Zelenskyy. 

What Euromaidan stood against

Corruption you can’t imagine

This is what Ukraine is fighting against

What does this mean for Ukraine’s Euro-Atlantic aspirations?

It’s horrible. We’ve been reporting developments in NABU and SAPO to international partners for 10 years. This is our progress toward building good governance and the rule of law, getting closer to the EU.

More than 90% of Ukrainians now support EU aspirations. All those EU accession developments, money granted through the Ukraine Facility in exchange for reforms, IMF loans – they are in big danger because the fundamentals on which these programs were built are being destroyed by Zelenskyy and his associates to protect family members and close businesses from investigation.

Simultaneously, there’s a huge crackdown on watchdog organizations. There were these absurd charges against Vitaly Shabunin [-her colleague-], claiming he served in the army inappropriately. We expect more charges against Vitaly to silence him.

Zelenskyy and Yermak want to silence us. They will try to develop criminal charges like state treason. Basically, you are a state traitor in Ukraine when you’re saying the truth.

This is not what the Ukrainian people are fighting against Russian aggression for. This is actually what we are fighting against, because Russia wants to suppress freedom of speech, independent thinking, and criticism of authorities.

Democracy is very deep in the veins of the Ukrainian people. All those fallen heroes were fighting for a completely different Ukraine than Zelenskyy is now trying to build – where there is freedom, dignity, and justice with the rule of law.

When Zelenskyy silences independent media and watchdog organizations, he is crossing many red lines inside Ukrainian society, which could lead to a very dangerous explosion. To prevent this,  Zelenskyy must stop this law.

If he signed it, he has to withdraw his signature.

All those who invented this attack on anti-corruption bodies are either intentionally or unintentionally helping the Kremlin win this war from inside Ukraine.

Start of their end

You’ve been doing this work since 2012 through three different presidents. What’s the common pattern when leaders try to capture such institutions? How does this moment feel different?

It is the start of their end. Agony.

It’s complicated in Zelenskyy’s case because we’re simultaneously fighting a large-scale war. If there were no war, Zelenskyy and his parliament would not be in power.

Unfortunately, for Zelenskyy and Yermak, the only strategy they’re thinking about is maintaining power. This causes them to roll back reforms and dismantle democracy because they understand they cannot win democratic elections.

It smells like they feel elections are coming. All these crackdowns are related to the fear of not being in power longer.

How to stay in power? Get rid of watchdog organizations naming names and saying the truth. Get rid of independent media – sanction media owners to shut down outlets like Ukrainska Pravda, Novaya Vremya. Intimidate individual activists and journalists. Then destroy possible political opponents.

There is a lot of trust in Ukraine’s armed forces. Therefore, the State Bureau of Investigations will attack military commanders who have the trust of the Ukrainian people.

In Shabunin’s case, Zelenskyy and Yermak showed they can use this instrument to destroy any person serving in the military.

Kaleniuk’s colleague targeted

“Obvious revenge”: Ukraine prosecutes the activist who created its anti-corruption system

Zelenskyy becomes villain against whom he campaigned in 2019

It’s ironic that Zelenskyy campaigned as the anti-corruption outsider in 2019. Now he’s dismantling the very institutions built to fulfill these promises. Why this turn? Why now? Doesn’t he understand this is suicidal?

I think he needs to thank Mr. Andriy Yermak, who controls 90% of information flow to Zelensky, shapes his mind, and helps him appoint very loyal managers.

Yermak appointed Prosecutor General Ruslan Kravchenko, basically suggested him as a very good prospective Pshonka for Zelensky.

Zelenskyy might not understand or is too busy and tired. But he’s not coping with his role as leader, which should reflect the mood of the Ukrainian people.

If he entrusted so much power to Yermak and Oleg Tatarov – guys against democracy, against fundamental freedoms, against checks and balances – it reflects his view of society.

He campaigned in “Servant of the People” against untouchables. He created untouchables inside his circle. So he became the [anti-]hero against whom he was campaigning.

Could you give us more context about what NABU and SAPO have accomplished that is now at risk?

They have charged hundreds of people in high-level positions, tackling critical cases in different sectors.

Just this year, there were charges in defense sector food procurement, against key state officials in land schemes, and charges against Oleksiy Chernyshov, the former deputy prime minister and close friend of Zelenskyy.

We’ve been using these cases since 2022 as powerful arguments to advocate for more weapons, more support for Ukraine, fast-track European integration, the Danish model.

These are the narratives the Kremlin tried to spread through propaganda – that Ukraine is absolutely corrupt, that Zelenskyy is autocratic, oppresses opposition, and silences critics.

Two months ago, I was defending Zelenskyy against this. When Trump was saying Zelenskyy is a dictator, I wrote pieces and did interviews saying there is a system of checks and balances in Ukraine, these anti-corruption institutions are working.

Now I can’t say anything. Yermak, Zelenskyy, and the MPs voting for this law have created beautiful arguments for the Kremlin to make Ukraine a country not worth supporting.

I hope international partners will keep supporting Ukraine with military assistance – it’s critical for our armed forces dying defending Ukraine. But clearly, Russia will use this to discredit support.

Is NABU infested with Russian spies?

The government says this is about national security after finding Russian spies in NABU. You’re saying it’s about protecting corrupt officials. How do we know who’s right?

It’s very simple. The Security Service, Prosecutor General’s Office, and State Bureau of Investigations conducted simultaneously 80 searches against more than 15 NABU detectives and their family members without court warrants, claiming it was a special operation to unveil Russian spies.

So far, we have only two cases in which a suspicion was announced. All the other cases are not related to cooperating with Russia—car accidents from years ago, other crazy cases.

Even the security-related charges aren’t extraordinary cases with clearly significant security damage. One NABU worker allegedly sold cannabis to Dagestan through relatives with Russian citizenship. Another allegedly provided information to a former security service officer during the Yanukovych period.

Simultaneously, the security service is verifying how SAPO handles state secrecy and getting access to all pending investigations—whistleblowers, agents cooperating with NABU, and all operative information.

They already accessed files and saw where NABU was looking. Coincidentally, the next day, Zelenskyy passed a law empowering the prosecutor general with all rights to control when NABU moves and breathes.

He’s directly receiving orders from Yermak, executing Zelenskyy’s will. Zelenskyy is pissed off that NABU and SAPO are investigating his close associates like Chernyshov.

Perfect moment

The timing seems strategic – wartime, no elections, weakened opposition. Was this the perfect moment?

It is the perfect moment because our European partners are on vacation drinking prosecco and enjoying the summer seaside. I’m joking obviously, but that’s important – how to mobilize proper reaction from European partners.

Protests against law to gut anti-corruption agencies are starting in Ukraine. Here is Lviv

Today, the parliament voted for law #12414 to bring the National Anti-Corruption Bureau and Specialized Anti-Corruption Office under control of politically-appointed General Prosecutor,… pic.twitter.com/9H6PeDH07K

— Euromaidan Press (@EuromaidanPress) July 22, 2025

Overall, this attack is strategically important for the Kremlin and plays into their hands. If they’re trying to accuse us of state treason, they should look at themselves – how they’re creating reasons and grounds for the Kremlin to attack Ukraine internationally.

What concretely happens now? If there’s a billion-dollar corruption case tomorrow, who investigates it?

The Prosecutor General controls that case. NABU can investigate, but there will be just the name NABU. The substance of having a truly independent agency with SAPO supervision will be over.

It means one person, Kravchenko, goes to another person, Yermak, and they agree: “Should we investigate this billion-dollar case? Probably not, but we’ll ask this defense producer for 10% bribe. Let’s introduce our affiliated companies as co-owners, and then we won’t investigate anything. Everybody’s happy.”

We are building new oligarchs in Ukraine. This is the thinking happening inside the president’s office among those designing this scheme.

10 years of Ukraine’s progress annulled

What does this mean for Ukraine’s European integration prospects?

It puts us back 10 years. I have déjà vu of November 2013, when Yanukovych refused to sign the EU association agreement and told the Ukrainian people, “I don’t care what you think.”

The establishment of these institutions was written in all documents related to EU accession, IMF loans, and visa liberalization. If you dismantle these agencies, you can’t remove them from these documents. These are Ukraine’s obligations, which are now nullified. All progress will be nullified.

How to repair that overnight when the destruction is already done? It’s impossible.

Parliament members voting for this trash were so happy, congratulating themselves. Folks like Maksym Buzhanskyi from Servant of the People were celebrating with Yuliia Tymoshenko, who spreads the same messages Putin spread in early February 2022 before invading Ukraine.

Putin said Ukraine is losing sovereignty to foreign partners, establishing anti-corruption institutions with foreign experts. For that, Ukraine needs to be liberated. This is how Putin started the large-scale war.

Now our MPs are saying the same thing Putin was saying. Are they nuts? They should quit and work in Russia.

International partners stay mum as red lines crossed

What has the international response been? Is it what you expected?

Very slow. This escalation could have been prevented if before the Ukraine Reform Conference, when the Cabinet violated the law and didn’t appoint a BEB director, URC leaders clearly told Zelenskyy it’s unacceptable.

At the end, as there was no reaction, came these searches of Shabunin without court warrants, absurd accusations.

Did we see the international partner’s reaction? No, everybody was waiting. “Let’s see how it develops.” 

“Everybody doesn’t care about corruption and the rule of law anymore. We’re the bosses in our home. We decide what we do. We don’t care about your reforms.”

This approach was bred by self-censorship of our international partners.

Daria, thank you very much. Let’s hope President Zelenskyy will roll back this law.

After this interview was recorded, Zelenskyy signed the law

Zelenskyy signs controversial law undermining Ukraine’s anti-corruption agencies

A suspected Russian spy in Ukraine’s national anti-graft bureau was arrested in Kyiv after security officials accused him of leaking restricted data to Russian intelligence via a traitor tied to fugitive ex-president Viktor Yanukovych. Liga reports that the Shevchenkivskyi District Court in Kyiv ordered the officer’s pretrial detention without bail until 20 September.

Anti-graft bureau officer suspected of spying for Russia

Liga, citing a law enforcement source, reports that the arrested individual is Viktor Husarov, an officer from the D-2 closed unit within the central office of the National Anti-Corruption Bureau of Ukraine (NABU). He was detained by the Security Service of Ukraine (SBU) on 21 July.

According to the Prosecutor General’s Office, the suspect allegedly carried out espionage on behalf of Russia’s Federal Security Service (FSB). Investigators claim he passed information about Ukrainian law enforcement officials and civilians to Russian intelligence through an intermediary. That intermediary, the office said, was Dmytro Ivantsov — a known traitor and former deputy head of personal security for Yanukovych, who assisted the former president’s escape to Russia in February 2014.

The Prosecutor General’s Office confirmed that at least 60 episodes of transmitting restricted information had been documented.

“For each such transmission, the NABU officer received funds to his bank card,” prosecutors added.

The officer has been officially charged with state treason and unauthorized actions involving restricted information committed by a person with authorized access.

SBU operation aimed to neutralize Russian penetration of NABU

On 21 July, the SBU and the Prosecutor General’s Office announced the launch of a special operation to disrupt Russian infiltration within NABU. The agencies stated they had detained a staff member of the central apparatus of NABU suspected of spying for Russia.

NABU said that it had earlier received a warning in August 2023 from SBU leadership about potential risks involving the suspect. The agency said it initiated an internal interview process to evaluate possible disciplinary action or dismissal. However, according to NABU, the SBU advised it not to proceed in order to avoid interfering with an ongoing counterintelligence operation targeting other individuals connected to the traitor.

Ukraine’s parliament voted to strip anti-corruption agencies of their independence just as a major bribery scandal emerged within the Security Service of Ukraine (SBU), exposing the government’s attack on oversight institutions while corruption flourishes unchecked.

The $300,000 bribery case involving an SBU official who helped draft dodgers avoid military service reveals systemic corruption within the same agency that justified dismantling independent anti-corruption institutions.

The timing demonstrates how Ukraine is eliminating accountability mechanisms while the problems they were designed to address persist across the system.

SBU official sold draft exemptions for $300,000

An SBU Department for Protection of National Statehood sector chief exploited his unit’s role in a National Police investigation targeting illegal border crossings by draft dodgers. Through two intermediaries—including a former SBU employee—he demanded $300,000 from a suspect to destroy case materials and leak investigative details, NABU and the Specialized Anti-Corruption Prosecutor’s Office (SAPO) reported.

The official threatened prosecution under more severe charges if the suspect refused to pay. Investigators documented him receiving $72,000 before filing charges under Article 368 of Ukraine’s Criminal Code for abuse of office.

The scheme targeted Ukraine’s most sensitive wartime issue—military service evasion during an existential fight for survival. The corruption reached into the security apparatus responsible for protecting national defense, showing how graft undermines Ukraine’s war effort at the highest levels.

The SBU confirmed their Internal Security Department discovered the corruption in 2024. The case was subsequently transferred to the State Bureau of Investigations, then to NABU due to the large bribe amount—following standard procedures for high-value corruption cases.

Parliament guts anti-corruption oversight

Hours after NABU announced the completed investigation, Parliament passed Bill No. 12414 by 263 votes, fundamentally restructuring Ukraine’s anti-corruption system. The legislation transfers key oversight powers from independent agencies to the politically-appointed Prosecutor General.

The new rules allow the Prosecutor General to reassign NABU cases, override SAPO prosecutorial decisions, and resolve inter-agency disputes. SAPO prosecutors now report to the Prosecutor General rather than their own leadership, while NABU’s director must seek permission to claim jurisdiction over cases.

NABU and SAPO were created after the 2014 revolution specifically to investigate high-level corruption with independence from political interference. The new law eliminates that independence entirely.

Political analyst Ihor Chalenko told Euromaidan Press the changes create “a lasting centralization of authority over Ukraine’s law enforcement system.” All investigative agencies now operate under a single hierarchy, with the Prosecutor General holding decisive power over case assignments and prosecutorial decisions.

Explore further

Security service officials took $300,000 bribes as Ukraine guts corruption oversight

A pattern of institutional conflict

This isn’t the first time Ukraine’s security agencies and anti-corruption bodies have clashed. In 2017, the SBU detained seven NABU employees working undercover, sparking what became known as the “war of anti-corruptionists.” That conflict escalated to threats of dismissing NABU’s director, prompting warnings from the US that aid could be cut if anti-corruption institutions were dismantled.

The SBU has also faced criticism for targeting journalists investigating corruption. In February 2024, the agency was exposed for illegally surveilling investigative outlet Bihus.Info, while in 2024, President Zelenskyy fired the SBU’s cybersecurity chief for allegedly retaliating against a journalist who investigated his family’s questionable property purchases.

These patterns suggest institutional tensions that extend beyond the current crisis, with the SBU repeatedly finding itself involved in controversies while serving as both investigator and subject of corruption probes.

International stakes rise

The G7 Ambassadors expressed “serious concerns” about developments at NABU and requested meetings with Ukrainian government officials. Ukraine’s EU aspirations and billions in Western aid depend heavily on anti-corruption performance, making institutional changes a potential threat to international support.

The Anti-Corruption Action Center described recent developments as “an attempt to destroy independent institutions” to prevent investigations into officials close to President Zelenskyy. The European Union has not yet considered suspending funding over the anti-corruption agency changes, but observers worry about the precedent.

Why this matters for Ukraine’s future

The timing of these separate developments—a completed corruption case against the SBU and Parliament’s vote to centralize anti-corruption control—reveals the complexity of Ukraine’s institutional challenges during wartime.

With elections suspended and political opposition limited, independent anti-corruption agencies represented among the last checks on executive power. The SBU case demonstrates that corruption exists across the security apparatus, raising questions about whether concentrating oversight authority in the Prosecutor General’s Office addresses the problem or simply relocates it.

Ukraine must simultaneously fight external enemies and maintain internal accountability. The latest revelations suggest the corruption challenge extends throughout the law enforcement system that’s now being reorganized under centralized control.

On 22 July, the Ukrainian Parliament passed bill No. 12414, which effectively destroys the independence of the National Anti-Corruption Bureau of Ukraine (NABU) and the Specialized Anti-Corruption Prosecutor’s Office (SAPO), says the Independent Anti-Corruption Commission (NAKO). 

The NAKO emphasizes that this decision will severely undermine trust in Ukraine on the international stage. The development of anti-corruption institutions, supported by civil society and international partners since 2015, was a key condition for Ukraine’s progress towards the EU and NATO.

The liquidation of NABU’s and SAPO’s independence threatens further international aid.

The law was adopted amid high-profile searches at NABU, where security forces uncovered an FSB agent working inside the bureau who passed information to Russia.

“Yesterday we saw SBU searches that showed NABU is not perfect, and that is true, but today these searches have been used by the authorities to dismantle an independent anti-corruption investigation,” says NAKO senior researcher Tetiana Nikolaienko.

Now the Prosecutor General becomes the de facto head of SAPO prosecutors, gains full access to NABU cases, has the right to transfer them to other bodies, decides jurisdiction disputes, and signs indictments against high-ranking officials. This destroys the possibility of conducting impartial investigations according to the law.

Meanwhile, the Anti-Corruption Action Center stresses that President Zelenskyy’s signature under this law will return the country to the times of former pro-Russian President Victor Yanukovych.

“Under these conditions, NABU, SAPO, and the High Anti-Corruption Court lose all meaning as Zelenskyy-installed Prosecutor General will stop investigations against all the president’s friends,” adds NAKO.

Accordingly, there is no point in electronic asset declarations, punishment for illegal enrichment, special confiscation, or other anti-corruption reforms.

The Civil Anti-Corruption Council under the Ministry of Defense says Ukraine’s anti-corruption system has lost its independence within several minutes. The organization is urging President Volodymyr Zelenskyy to veto a bill No. 12414, passed by Ukrainian lawmakers, which curtails the freedom of the National Anti-Corruption Bureau (NABU) and the Specialized Anti-Corruption Prosecutor’s Office (SAPO)

While the bill was introduced as addressing the investigation of wartime disappearances, last-minute amendments radically altered its essence. Both the relevant committee and the parliamentary chamber approved the changes at record speed.

“This law strips SAPO of its independence,” states the Civil Anti-Corruption Council under the Ministry of Defense.

From now on, the Prosecutor General will have direct control over prosecutors in the Specialized Anti-Corruption Prosecutor’s Office, can reassign their powers, seize NABU cases, and issue directives.

This opens the door to manual control, political interference, impunity for loyal officials, and the destruction of independent investigations into high-level corruption.

“We are fighting for justice. But this law is about abuse of power and shielding installed persons,” the Council emphasizes.

The West has reacted swiftly to the law. The European Commission has voiced concern, stressing that EU financial support depends on progress in democratic governance. G7 ambassadors have said they plan to raise the issue with Ukrainian officials.

Guillaume Mercier, the spokesperson for the European Commission for Enlargement, has claimed that the EU is providing Ukraine with significant financial assistance “subject to progress in transparency, judicial reform, and democratic governance.”

“These bodies are crucial to Ukraine’s reform agenda and must act independently to fight corruption and maintain public trust,” he says.

NABU was established in 2015 under pressure from Western partners and civil society.

Kyiv risks losing crucial Western support after the Ukrainian Parliament passed, and President Volodymyr Zelenskyy reportedly signed, the controversial bill No. 12414. It curtails the independence of the National Anti-Corruption Bureau (NABU) and the Specialized Anti-Corruption Prosecutor’s Office (SAPO), UkrInform reports. 

The law requires key decisions by these institutions to be coordinated with the Prosecutor General’s Office. Vitali Shabunin, head of the Anti-Corruption Action Center, published the full text of the amendments, which he says “de facto nullify the independence of NABU and SAPO.”

The West has reacted swiftly. The European Commission has voiced “concern,” stressing that EU financial support depends on progress in democratic governance. G7 ambassadors have said they plan to raise the issue with Ukrainian officials, Reuters reports.

Guillaume Mercier, the spokesperson for the European Commission for Enlargement, has stressed that the EU is providing Ukraine with significant financial assistance “subject to progress in transparency, judicial reform and democratic governance,” according to Ukrainska Pravda. 

“These bodies are crucial to Ukraine’s reform agenda and must act independently to fight corruption and maintain public trust,” he said.

Earlier, Ukraine’s Security Service (SBU) arrested a NABU officer on suspicion of spying for Russia and detained another over alleged business ties with Russia. At least 15 NABU detectives were searched. NABU stated the SBU’s actions were “excessive” and effectively “paralyzed the agency’s operations,” Reuters reports.

Transparency International has warned that the developments show “systemic pressure” on independent anti-corruption bodies and urged President Volodymyr Zelenskyy to publicly reaffirm their independence. The allegations against the detectives are seen as too broad and contradictory not to raise suspicion of political motives.

NABU was established in 2015 under pressure from Western partners and civil society. Its ability to operate independently is now in doubt, especially in light of the arrests, which risk undermining trust in Ukraine’s anti-corruption efforts. Diplomatic missions are continuing to closely monitor the situation. 

Editor's note: This article was updated to include comments from Ukraine's Deputy Prime Minister Oleksii Chernyshov.

Deputy Prime Minister and National Unity Minister Oleksii Chernyshov will keep his position after a decision from the High Anti-Corruption Court on July 2, despite an ongoing corruption investigation.

Chernyshov is a suspect in a "large-scale" illegal land grab corruption case. After a court hearing on June 27, he was banned from traveling abroad without permission and slapped with a bail set at Hr 120 million ($2.9 million) while awaiting trial.

Despite Cheryshov’s defense appealing the bail, it was paid in full shortly after the July 2 hearing,  Olesya Chemerys, spokesperson for the High Anti-Corruption Court, told Ukrainian media Ukrainska Pravda. July 2 was the last day to pay the bail.

Prosecutors filed a motion for his removal on June 27. The day before, he told the Kyiv Independent that he denied the allegations and would not step down from his job.

"I definitely respect the court’s decision. At the same time, I will use all legal means to defend myself in court further and to protect my name and reputation," Chernyshov told the Kyiv Independent after the hearing on July 2.

Chernshov is the highest-ranking official in Ukrainian history to face such charges while in office, attracting a lot of eyes to the case. He is also considered a close ally of President Volodymyr Zelensky, marking a major accusation against the president’s inner circle.

Chernyshov has headed the National Unity Ministry since December, which was previously named the Reintegration of Temporarily Occupied territories Ministry, to strengthen ties with the Ukrainian diaspora. It was initially unclear why the ministry was created and what Chernyshov’s responsibilities were.

Earlier this week, several Ukrainian MPs, including lawmaker Yaroslav Zhelezniak, speculated that the ministry could be dismantled due to Chernyshov’s case.  Zhelezniak believes that the ministry is not needed and was created with the political goal of securing a position for Cherynshov, reported Radio Svoboda.

For now, Chernyshov says that the ministry will continue to operate as usual. "We have a lot of important work ahead, and stay dedicated to our values and tasks," he told the Kyiv Independent on July 2.

Speaking to reporters after the court dismissed the motion for his removal, Chernyshov said he had "collected funds" to pay the bail as his personal accounts are blocked.

The court’s decision to keep Cheryshov in place has raised concerns among the Anti-Corruption Action Center, a Kyiv-based watchdog. With Chernyshov still acting as deputy prime minister, he could potentially use his position to influence the court’s decision going forward in the case, said Olena Shcherban, deputy executive director at ANTAC.

"The logic of the court is currently completely unclear to me, as are the motives — but given the high profile of the position and Chernyshov being close to the president's entourage, I do not exclude that the court could be influenced," Shcherban told the Kyiv Independent.

"Whether this will affect the case is not yet known; it all depends on whether Chernyshov will still influence witnesses and use his position to save himself — and I think he will definitely use it," she added.

According to the National Anti-Corruption Bureau (NABU) investigation, during his time as communities and territories minister in 2020-2022, Chernyshov and his associates undervalued land plots to benefit a developer in exchange for kickbacks.

Chernyshov and his accomplices allegedly received "significant" discounts on apartments in existing buildings, totaling over Hr 14.5 million ($346,000), from the developer. The actions cost Ukraine Hr 1 billion ($24 million), according to NABU.

Chernyshov first raised eyebrows after he left the country on a business trip days before law enforcement unveiled the charges and detained two of his close associates. Despite suspicions that he had fled the country to avoid arrest, he returned to Ukraine on June 22 and was summoned to NABU the following day.

During the court hearing, NABU and the Specialized Anti-Corruption Prosecutor's Office (SAPO) requested that Chernyshov be suspended from office and that the court set bail of Hr 120 million ($2.9 million).

The two offices also requested additional measures restricting his movements, including that he hand in his passport and wear an electronic monitoring device.

Top Russian defense official gets 13 years in graft crackdown

Authorities detained former Russian Deputy Defense Minister Timur Ivanov in April 2024 on bribery allegations, later adding embezzlement charges in October.

The Kyiv IndependentOlena Goncharova

Ukraine's National Anti-Corruption Bureau (NABU) and the Specialized Anti-Corruption Prosecutor's Office (SAPO) have filed a motion with the High Anti-Corruption Court seeking to impose bail and suspend Deputy Prime Minister Oleksii Chernyshov from office, NABU's press service reported on June 27.

Chernyshov was officially named a suspect on June 23 in what NABU called a "large-scale" illegal land grab case. Chernyshov heads the new National Unity Ministry in charge of returning refugees and is a close ally of President Volodymyr Zelensky. He left Ukraine days before law enforcement revealed a massive corruption scheme and detained two of his former close associates — Maksym Horbatiuk and Vasyl Volodin.

Investigators allege that Chernyshov and his associates undervalued the land fivefold, costing the state Hr 1 billion (about $24 million), and received discounted apartments worth over Hr 14.5 million ($346,000) in return. In a comment to the Kyiv Independent, Chernyshov has denied the allegations and said he has no plans to step down.

The agencies are requesting that Chernyshov be placed under a bail measure of Hr 120 million ($2.8 million) and be formally removed from his current post while the investigation proceeds.

The agencies said the proposed measures reflect the risks identified during the investigation, including concerns about potential obstruction of justice. They emphasized that their motion aligns with the court's precedent in similar high-profile corruption cases.

The motion also requests that Chernyshov be subject to standard obligations, including a travel ban, passport surrender, and mandatory cooperation with law enforcement. SAPO additionally urged that he be prohibited from contacting other suspects or witnesses in the case.

The agency noted that Chernyshov returned to Ukraine voluntarily and responded to their summons.

If the court upholds the request, Chernyshov would be required to pay the bail within five days. Failure to do so or breach of the imposed conditions could result in a more severe pre-trial measure, prosecutors said.

Chernyshov returned to Ukraine on June 22 following growing public pressure and reported to NABU the following day. Despite his claim that he had been on a scheduled business trip, critics accused him of attempting to evade charges.

Chernyshov is considered a close ally of Zelensky and has held several high-profile roles, including CEO of state-owned oil and gas giant Naftogaz.

Exclusive: Ukrainian deputy prime minister suspected of corruption says he won’t step down

Ukrainian minister and deputy Prime Minister Oleksii Chernyshov has been formally named a suspect in a high-profile illegal land grab case, becoming the highest-ranking official in Ukrainian history to face such charges.

The Kyiv IndependentDominic Culverwell

Ukrainian Deputy Prime Minister Oleksii Chernyshov on June 23 was formally named a suspect in a high-profile illegal land grab case, becoming the highest-ranking official in Ukrainian history to face such charges while in office.

After reports and public speculation around Chernyshov's potential involvement, the National Anti-Corruption Bureau (NABU) released a statement announcing that he was the sixth suspect in a “large-scale” corruption scheme led by a property developer from Kyiv who illegally claimed a land plot to build a residential complex.

In a comment to the Kyiv Independent, Chernyshov denied the accusations against him. "I'm absolutely not involved in that (scheme) — that's clear," he said.

He also said he won't step down from his post. "I will stay in this position," Chernyshov told the Kyiv Independent.

Chernyshov, who heads the new National Unity Ministry in charge of returning refugees, is a close ally of President Volodymyr Zelensky. He raised eyebrows in Ukraine after leaving the country days before law enforcement revealed a massive corruption scheme and detained two of his former close associates — Maksym Horbatiuk and Vasyl Volodin.

According to the anti-corruption agency, during his time as communities and territories minister in 2020-2022, Chernyshov and his associates undervalued land plots by five times to benefit the developer, which Ukrainian media identified as Serhii Kopystyra, allegedly costing the state Hr 1 billion ($24 million).

In exchange, NABU says the developer gave kickbacks to Chernyshov and his accomplices with "significant" discounts on apartments in his existing buildings, totaling over Hr 14.5 million ($346,000). Ukrainian news site Ukrainska Pravda reports this took place between 2021-2022.

NABU and Ukraine's Specialized Anti-Corruption Prosecutor's Office (SAPO) seized the plot to prevent the scheme. Most of the illegally obtained apartments have been seized.

Chernyshov arrived back in the country on June 22 after suspicions mounted in Ukraine that he was on the run and avoiding detention.

"I was definitely on a business trip and I was not escaping out of Ukraine," Chernyshov told the Kyiv Independent. "The rumors of me not returning are nothing but manipulation. I came exactly once my trip was over. I had a very intensive trip in Europe."

Chernyshov claims he was targeted by a "smear campaign" but said he didn't know who could be behind it.

He also said that he came back on his own accord and denied that anyone had asked him to return.

The minister arrived at the NABU offices on June 23, after the agency summoned him to be charged. Upon leaving the bureau, Chernyshov wrote on Facebook that he had a “constructive chat” with detectives and will cooperate with the organization.

An investigation into Chernyshov and two of his associates took place last year after suspicions arose, according to Ukrainska Pravda, with the agency obtaining a warrant to search Chernyshov's home.

But sources in anti-corruption agencies told Ukrainska Pravda that the head of NABU, Semen Kryvonos, blocked police searches due to his close relationship with Chernyshov, who was his boss when Kryvonos headed the State Architecture Inspection, an agency that was subordinated to Chernyshov's former ministry.

Searches allegedly took place a few weeks ago, after a one-year delay, according to Ukrainska Pravda.

Chernyshov said that while he knows Kryvonos in a professional manner, the two are not in contact. He added that the allegations against Horbatiuk and Volodin look "quite serious" but that it was for law enforcement to decide if their detention is justified.

He was appointed head of state-owned energy giant Naftogaz in 2022 after the dissolution of the Communities and Territories Development Ministry. He became the national unity minister in December 2024, a ministry created from scratch.

Chernyshov is widely believed to have a personal friendship with Zelensky. According to a report by Ukrainska Pravda, he was among only a handful of guests invited to celebrate Zelensky's birthday during the Covid-19 pandemic in 2021 — and the only member of the Cabinet of Ministers in attendance.

"The key thing is that today NABU and SAPO have actually reached the immediate circle of the president's 'family,'" Olena Shcherban, deputy executive director at the Anti-Corruption Action Center (ANTAC), a Kyiv-based watchdog, told the Kyiv Independent.

The President's Office feels the threat from NABU and SAPO and will likely attack the two institutions in response to Chernyshov's notice of suspicion, rather than "saving" the minister, Shcherban added.

"I am sure we will see both attempts to make harmful changes to the law and personal attacks on the SAPO head (Oleksandr Klymenko)," she said.  

Deputy PM Chernyshov returns to Ukraine as questions mount amid corruption probe

Deputy Prime Minister Oleksii Chernyshov returned to Ukraine on June 22 following his official trip abroad amid media speculations connecting Chernyshov’s absence to an ongoing corruption investigation.

The Kyiv IndependentDmytro Basmat