‘Striking at something sacred’ Meduza asks a journalist, a political insider, and a sociologist to weigh in on Ukraine’s anti-corruption crisis
Ukraine is facing a wartime political crisis. On July 22, President Volodymyr Zelensky stripped the country’s main anti-corruption agencies of their independence, placing the National Anti-Corruption Bureau (NABU) and the Specialized Anti-Corruption Prosecutor’s Office (SAPO) under the control of the Prosecutor General, who is appointed by the president himself. The move sparked Ukraine’s first mass protests since Russia’s 2022 invasion and drew sharp criticism from Western partners. Just two days later, Zelensky backtracked, promising to restore the agencies’ autonomy. To better understand what triggered the crisis and how it could be resolved, Meduza asked a political reporter, a source close to Zelensky’s office, and a prominent sociologist to weigh in.
‘This is a new generation’
A Ukrainian journalist with years of experience covering domestic politics who attended the recent protests
These are the largest protests since Volodymyr Zelensky took office. I don’t remember anything like this. Demonstrations were held in every major Ukrainian city — Kyiv, Chernihiv, Kharkiv, Dnipro, Lviv, Uzhhorod, [and more]. On Wednesday, there were rallies in every regional capital. The fact that NABU and SAPO became a trigger is no surprise. Some polls suggest corruption in Ukraine is seen as almost an even greater problem than the war. I think the government underestimated just how sensitive this issue really is.
At the same time, polls also show a lack of trust in NABU and SAPO themselves — just like in every other law enforcement agency. Sixty-two percent of Ukrainians don’t trust NABU. Maybe [officials in Zelensky’s office] thought that with trust levels so low, no one would [take to the streets] to defend them.
That’s essentially the argument officials and lawmakers who supported the law are using now. They claim they did everything to improve NABU, precisely because it isn’t trusted as it stands. But Ukrainians feel keenly that the problem of corruption isn’t being addressed — and passing this law was the last straw.
Meduza has condemned Russia’s invasion of Ukraine from the very start, and we are committed to reporting objectively on a war we firmly oppose. Join Meduza in its mission to challenge the Kremlin’s censorship with the truth. Donate today.
Volodymyr Zelensky justified the law by pointing to alleged Russian influence within the anti-corruption agencies. No reasonable person would deny that Russian agents might infiltrate any institution — NABU included, which is hardly beyond reproach. But if that’s the concern, why not start by looking at the president’s own inner circle? Or at least at parliament, where remnants of the OPZZh [the former pro-Russian party Opposition Platform — For Life] are still working — people who literally traveled to Russia. Maybe we should start there before we go looking in NABU.
Sure, there could be Russian agents in NABU too. But you don’t dismantle a whole agency every time you go looking for them somewhere.
In this case, the administration didn’t just go after some supposedly unnecessary agencies. SAPO and NABU were created as a condition for Ukraine’s integration with the E.U. Overall, this is seen as an attempt to dismantle what the Maidan [Revolution] stood for — fighting corruption was one of the protesters’ key demands, and these anti-corruption bodies were established in direct response to that demand.
Yes, they have their problems, and they don’t work as quickly as many would like, but they’re still the best thing created in Ukraine’s law enforcement system in the past decade. That’s why [the passage of this law] was seen as the government striking at something sacred.
And we have a basis for comparison. If you look at Zelensky’s term, there are serious questions about how the State Bureau of Investigation was reformed, for example. No one in Ukraine is unaware of the fact that the State Bureau of Investigation is now an agency under the president’s control. Such examples suggest that President Zelensky and his administration simply aren’t showing the political will to build independent government institutions.
One of the most plausible explanations for why this law was passed is that NABU got too close to people in the president’s inner circle. A recent case involves the deputy prime minister and minister for national unity, Oleksiy Chernyshov, who’s facing corruption charges.
Just days ago, NABU and SAPO wrapped up their investigation into Pavlo Kyrylenko, the head of the Antimonopoly Committee and a close associate of the president — a prosecutor who rose through the ranks during Zelensky’s time in office. He served as governor of the Donetsk region before being appointed to head the Antimonopoly Committee, and now he’s standing trial. On top of that, Ukrainian media have reported that a formal notice of suspicion was allegedly being prepared for Tymur Mindich, a business partner of the president and co-owner of the Kvartal 95 studio.
Of course, there are plenty of questions about NABU itself. It’s been repeatedly accused of lacking full independence from the president’s office, and of moving too slowly on corruption cases — as well as the courts being too slow to convict high-ranking officials. NABU’s usual response has been, “Guys, convictions aren’t our responsibility — that’s up to the anti-corruption court.” But recent events have shown that NABU isn’t afraid to go after people close to the president — and that, unquestionably, speaks in its favor.
In the end, a lot of young people took to the streets — mostly people under 25. We [journalists reporting on the ground] spoke to 15-, 17-, and 20-year-olds with relatives fighting in the war. There were tons of signs saying things like, “My father, my brother, my husband isn’t on the front line for this.” People told us in interviews, “I’d be ashamed to fuck things up on the home front.”
The second group of protesters were veterans who, in turn, said, “This isn’t what I fought for.” There were a lot of veterans with serious injuries — missing a leg, an arm, an eye. Most soldiers are at the front, of course, but we also met a few who were in Kyiv on assignment and came to the protest in civilian clothes. They kept a low profile — they could’ve gotten in trouble for being there.
And the young people admitted they don’t even remember Maidan. This is a new generation. But most of them are over 18, so they’re a potential voting bloc. If [the president’s office] doesn’t walk back this law, it’s safe to say he’s lost this generation for good. In my view, he’s already lost them — but maybe, he still has a chance to walk this back. “[If] he apologizes and says ‘I lost my head, forgive me.’”
‘Lawmakers feels like they’ve been hung out to dry’
A source close to the Ukrainian President’s Office
The [original] idea behind passing the law was that the President’s Office wanted these agencies [NABU and SAPO] to start functioning properly — and they never really had. On top of that, NABU had poor approval ratings in public opinion polls. That, by the way, was one reason they figured no one would defend them if they were attacked.
The agency handles a lot of minor issues — like a member of parliament renting an apartment at the state’s expense even though he already lives in Kyiv and isn’t entitled to housing. We’re talking about $500 a month here [Editor’s note: the source didn’t name a particular lawmaker].
Maybe the [President’s] Office did see the agency as a threat to their reputation. Of course, they didn’t expect this kind of [public] backlash. If they had, they probably would’ve thought twice. Few of the lawmakers [who voted for the bill] expected such a fierce response.
These were the largest protests we’ve seen under this administration. That’s really what pushed them to walk [the law] back. They don’t have experience [dealing with protests]. [Zelensky] always goes by public sentiment — he reads social media and local news outlets himself. And this time, he looked out the window [on July 23] and saw 10,000 people outside. By Wednesday morning, it was clear the law had to be rolled back.
The thing is, Kyiv has an informal agreement with the European Commission and most of the major donor countries — France, Germany, and others. Normally, when a country joins the E.U., it receives large sums of development funding during the accession process. [Western partners] are providing Ukraine with billions of euros in reconstruction aid. But they’re allocating the funds as if Ukraine were already receiving them as part of E.U. accession.
In return, Ukraine is required to continue reforms — including anti-corruption efforts. And now, it turns out we’re the ones breaking that deal. The independence of SAPO and NABU was a condition for Ukraine’s E.U. candidate status back in 2022. And now, citing the fact that anti-corruption bodies are no longer independent, they [the E.U.] could very well formally say that Ukraine’s candidate status is being revoked — “with all the ensuing consequences.”
Now, a new bill has been introduced — I think parliament will hold an emergency session to vote on it on July 31. A lot of lawmakers [who voted for the previous bill] feel like they’ve been hung out to dry. In the morning they were asked to vote for one thing, and a day later they’re being asked to vote for the exact opposite. In the end, you just end up looking like a complete idiot.
On top of that, some of the people cheering the law’s passage were the “sufferers” of this system [Editor’s note: in other words, people under investigation by NABU]. They were thrilled that, in their view, justice had finally been served, since they thought some of these cases were worthless.
‘A threat to Ukraine’s European future’
Volodymyr Paniotto, president of the Kyiv International Institute of Sociology (KIIS)
The protests themselves were not so large in scale. For example, in Kyiv, about 2,000 people came out to protest on July 22, and about 9,000 people came out on July 23. By comparison, during the Maidan [Revolution] hundreds of thousands to a million protesters gathered. But these are probably the largest wartime protests to date.
There were also reasons for discontent before this — such as the dismissal of [former Commander-in-Chief Valerii Zaluzhnyi] — but people understood that during the war, such actions harm social cohesion and resistance of the enemy. However, the current issue was more fundamental [for society]. The July 22–24 events in Kyiv, Lviv, and Dnipro brought together active citizens, including veterans, students, IT workers, and human rights defenders.
In wartime, society exhibits a high tolerance for restrictions and is focused on fighting the enemy and surviving. However, interference in the work of anti-corruption bodies, which has been so hard won and is a key condition for Western support (including military aid), is perceived as a “red line.”
The law symbolizes a possible rollback to the pre-European past: it undermines trust in institutional guarantees. This is especially painful considering that anticorruption reform is considered one of the few absolute successes of recent years. Many perceived this law as a threat to Ukraine’s European future. In fact, the 2013 Maidan [protests] were also largely associated with a threat to [the country’s] European future.
According to KIIS survey data, 65 percent of the population trusted Zelensky in June, which is a very high level of trust (before the war, his trust rating was only 32 percent). And he is quite sensitive to public opinion. In fact, Zelensky has already announced a rollback and submitted a new law to the Rada guaranteeing the independence of anti-corruption bodies. There’s hope that this problem will be resolved.
A complete rollback of the law would relieve the tension in society. The main question is whether this will really be a complete rollback or not. Will there be attempts to leave some leads and opportunities for the authorities to influence the anti-corruption bodies? And even if everything is done correctly, will everyone believe it?
Interviews by Elizaveta Antonova