Ukraine’s Policymakers Must Remain Accountable for Corruption

Ukraine is fighting to defend its democracy – from internal and external threats. The largest demonstrations to rock Ukraine since the beginning of the full-scale war with Russia unfolded recently in opposition to a law limiting the independence of two anti-corruption agencies: the National Anti-Corruption Bureau of Ukraine and the Specialized Anti-Corruption Prosecutor’s Office. Responding to demonstrations and Western pressure, lawmakers backpedaled, restoring the agencies’ independence on July 31. This is a win for Ukraine, but a temporary one.

Ukraine’s anti-corruption agencies remain under threat. The policy reversal was far from unanimous, with several lawmakers seeking “protection guarantees” in exchange for support. Days later, the agencies put another target on their backs by implicating a lawmaker (among others) in drone procurement theft. The interests that sought to hobble the institutions remain and will seek other, less public opportunities to take them out. On August 8, anti-corruption officials warned of budding efforts to “target the [anti-corruption] leadership itself,” possibly by replacing agency heads. Ukrainians and the West must remain vigilant.

Independent institutions to root out corruption ensure that political leaders do not become untouchable. Their freedom to target any leader must endure. Additional efforts to defang them would have devastating blowbacks. Corruption and rent-seeking hollow out public services, create risk and inefficiency that chase away business, and undermine democracy. 

Rampant corruption would also take a sledgehammer to Ukraine’s fight against Russia, destroying the very advantages enabling Ukraine’s scrappy army to prevail against Russia’s formidable one. A corrupt military is not effective. Russia’s army, after all, paints a dismally clear picture of what corruption does to a fighting force.

Russian military garrisons are choked up with thousands of fraud, embezzlement, and theft cases. Between 20 and 50 percent of Russia’s defense budget reportedly vanishes due to corruption. “Comrades” have pilfered millions of rubles of military supplies (down even to toilet paper) — in some cases, leaving reservists to buy feminine hygiene products to treat war wounds. Procurement fraud and equipment theft leave warfighters without the means to attack or to defend. It also leaves strategists, leaders, and intelligence officials in the dark— planning operations doomed to fail with resources that do not exist.

Ukraine must not follow Russia’s example. A Ukrainian military beset by corruption is also a liability to Western partners and thus a threat to long-term aid. The United States alone has sent more than $130 billion of military aid to Ukraine since the annexation of Crimea in 2014. Should corruption capture Ukraine’s supply lines, weapons could get into the hands of actors who would do the West harm. Already, aggressor states have used the war to study Western military capabilities. A direct pipeline through corrupt actors is unacceptable and cannot be risked.

The weak link in Ukraine’s anti-corruption commitment offers Putin another pathway to attack Ukraine’s sovereignty. If Russia cannot control Ukraine formally, corruption provides inroads to puppets whose strings Putin can pull. Should corruption ruin the reputation of the current government, Russia can also foment discontent to foster support for a pro-Putin alternative. This gives Putin a pathway to do with bribes what he has failed to do with bullets.

We have seen this situation play out before in Afghanistan. When Washington deprioritized corruption during periods of military engagement and reconstruction, it set the state up for failure. Tranches of Western aid ended up in warlords’ pockets, degrading the public’s faith in the West and, eventually, enabling the Taliban’s return.

Russian media have already seized on this situation as an opportunity to drive a wedge between Ukraine and its Western allies, taking the move as proof of Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky’s “authoritarian” leadership. Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov has used the statute to stoke the flames of conspiracies about Western funding to Ukraine, claiming the law only further proves “that a sizeable portion of [Western aid] … was stolen” and “they didn’t spend every dollar on the equipment.” The institutions’ restoration will not stop Russia from pushing this narrative.

The continued vitality of anti-corruption efforts is the cornerstone in building a Ukraine set to accede to both NATO and the European Union. The West did a commendable job in conveying that message in July, but we must continue to emphasize our commitment to a strong Ukraine while holding its political leaders accountable. If we walk away from Ukraine’s wars with either Russia or corruption, we provide a vacuum for Russia to move in — militarily or subversively. Abandoning Ukraine would desert all those striving to build a Western government, and Ukrainians abroad would remain refugees with little incentive to return.

Ukraine’s robust civil society has fought, won, and continues to fight for its soul as soldiers fight for its body. Using the tools and oversight we have, the West must join Ukraine’s civil society in building a prosperous, peaceful, and principled Ukraine.

Angela Howard is a research analyst at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies (FDD) Center on Economic and Financial Power. Ivana Stradner is a research fellow at FDD.