Zelensky’s Anti-Corruption Dilemma: Risks of Undermining Independent Watchdogs

As Ukraine continues to defend its sovereignty against Russian aggression, the integrity of its governance remains under international scrutiny. A critical issue now looms: President Volodymyr Zelensky’s potential decision to sign a law limiting the independence of two key institutions—the National Anti-Corruption Bureau of Ukraine (NABU) and the Specialized Anti-Corruption Prosecutor’s Office (SAPO). While intended reforms may claim efficiency, the risks associated with weakening these bodies are profound and far-reaching.

1. A Historical Context of Corruption

Ukraine has long been plagued by systemic corruption. Following its independence from the Soviet Union in 1991, the country struggled to transition from a centralized economy to a democratic system. Power vacuums enabled oligarchs to dominate economic and political spheres, entrenching patronage networks and institutional weakness. For decades, corruption permeated the judiciary, law enforcement, and public administration, creating a cycle of distrust among citizens.

International watchdogs consistently ranked Ukraine as one of the most corrupt nations in Europe. In 2013, just before the Euromaidan protests, Transparency International’s Corruption Perceptions Index placed Ukraine 144th out of 177 countries, signaling widespread governance failures. Even after reforms initiated in 2014, progress has been incremental, with Ukraine still ranking 104th out of 180 countries in 2023, far behind EU standards.

NABU and SAPO were created as responses to this legacy, aiming to break oligarchic control and strengthen rule of law. Undermining their independence would risk undoing hard-fought reforms and returning Ukraine to a governance model dominated by elite capture and impunity.

2. Threat to Rule of Law

Since 2014, NABU and SAPO have represented the cornerstone of Ukraine’s anti-corruption infrastructure, established under significant domestic and international pressure to ensure transparency and accountability. Curtailing their autonomy would erode checks and balances, reopening doors for political interference and oligarchic influence. Such a move would be a reversal of democratic progress achieved since the Euromaidan Revolution, undermining the very principles Ukrainians fought to uphold.

3. Jeopardizing International Support

International financial assistance and military aid remain vital for Ukraine’s survival. However, these funds are tied to anti-corruption benchmarks set by institutions such as the International Monetary Fund (IMF), European Union (EU), and G7 countries. A rollback on anti-corruption measures would signal governance regression, likely stalling EU accession talks and jeopardizing billions in financial packages. This would not only weaken Ukraine’s economy but also risk fracturing the united Western front supporting Kyiv.

4. Undermining Public Trust

Domestically, anti-corruption reforms enjoy strong public backing. Weakening NABU and SAPO could spark widespread protests similar to those seen during the Euromaidan movement. The perception that Ukraine is drifting back toward systemic corruption risks deepening political polarization and damaging President Zelensky’s credibility as a reformist leader.

5. Security and Geopolitical Consequences

The potential consequences are not confined to Ukraine’s internal politics. Russia would likely exploit any perceived corruption backslide through disinformation campaigns aimed at weakening international solidarity. Moreover, waning confidence among Western partners could delay or reduce critical military assistance, compromising Ukraine’s ability to withstand Russian aggression.

6. Economic Fallout

Investor confidence relies heavily on a transparent legal environment. Any erosion of institutional independence would deter foreign direct investment, fuel capital flight, and destabilize financial markets. A loss of trust from donors could put Ukraine’s currency under pressure, increase inflation, and exacerbate the humanitarian crisis.

Conclusion

President Zelensky faces an unenviable choice, but the risks of signing a law that undermines NABU and SAPO far outweigh any short-term political gain. Such a decision could jeopardize Ukraine’s war effort, EU integration, and economic stability while reigniting domestic unrest. To secure Ukraine’s future, maintaining—and strengthening—anti-corruption institutions is not optional; it is essential for victory on all fronts.

References

Council of Europe. (2022). Anti-corruption reforms in Ukraine: Progress and challenges. Strasbourg: Council of Europe Publishing.

European Union. (2023). EU accession criteria and governance standards: Ukraine progress report. Brussels: European Commission.

International Monetary Fund. (2023). Ukraine program review and governance benchmarks. Washington, DC: IMF Publications.

Transparency International. (2013). Corruption perceptions index 2013: Ukraine country data. Berlin: Transparency International.

Transparency International. (2023). Corruption perceptions index: Ukraine country report. Berlin: Transparency International.

United States Department of State. (2023). 2023 Investment climate statements: Ukraine. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.