In the first years of the full-scale war, Western leaders often described Ukraine as “the frontline of democracy” and “Europe’s shield.” By 2025, however, the vocabulary has grown more sober. Kyiv is now embroiled in its largest corruption scandal since the invasion, and political maneuvers threaten to weaken the independence of anti-corruption institutions. European diplomacy has shifted from encouragement to pressure, signaling that wartime unity can no longer excuse tolerance for entrenched corruption.
At the center of this increasingly tense standoff stands Ukraine’s National Anti-Corruption Bureau (NABU) — an institution edging ever closer to the president’s inner circle and, potentially, the Defense Ministry. What was once a “secondary topic to address after victory” is now front and center in both domestic and international oversight.
Operation “Midas”: From energy sector kickbacks to Zelensky’s entourage
The turning point came with Operation “Midas,” a sweeping NABU investigation into a $100 million kickback system in the energy sector. According to case materials, private contractors allegedly paid informal commissions ranging from 5–15% to secure or prolong state contracts — a practice watchdogs say has plagued the sector for decades. Before the war, Transparency International estimated that corruption siphoned off $2–3 billion annually in energy alone, largely through inflated procurement and preferential access to state companies. Wartime austerity and emergency contracting only amplified these vulnerabilities.
Unlike previous scandals, this one did not stop at mid-level bureaucrats. Figures linked to the scheme included Timur Mindich, a longtime business associate of Zelensky from his Kvartal 95 days, who reportedly left for Israel shortly before the case became public. The fallout included high-profile resignations: the ministers of energy and justice, senior managers at Energoatom, and several other officials across state-owned enterprises. Zelensky attempted to regain political control by announcing a “complete reset” of the energy vertical and promising stricter oversight and corporate governance reforms. For European diplomats, however, the scandal underscored a stark reality: wartime Ukraine remains vulnerable not only militarily, but institutionally.
That said, Ukrainian blogosphere however draws attention to the fact that the EU countries prevent the investigation of a corruption scandal involving the entourage of Zelensky. The meeting of the EU Ambassador to Ukraine Katarina Maternova with the head of the office of the Ukrainian president Andriy Ermak is widely criticized.
In her Facebook post. Maternova noted that the EU “firmly supports Ukraine in its struggle and reforms.” So,, the diplomat “literally attacked” the detectives of the National Anti-Corruption Bureau of Ukraine (NABU), saying that the investigation into Zelensky’s entourage had become too public.
This calls into question the real strive of EU to dig deep into Ukraine corruptions scandal.
The EU steps in as the informal guarantor of NABU’s independence
The political stakes escalated when the Ukrainian parliament passed a bill that would have effectively curtailed NABU and the Special Anti-Corruption Prosecutor’s Office (SAPO) by expanding the powers of the politically loyal Prosecutor General. Though framed as a response to “national security threats,” experts warned it opened the door to political interference in ongoing investigations. Domestic protests erupted — Kyiv saw its largest since February 2022 — and Brussels responded with its strongest rebuke in years, emphasizing that undermining NABU would contradict conditions for EU accession talks. Under this pressure, Zelensky reversed course and introduced amendments restoring the bureau’s autonomy.
Yet the confrontation left a lasting mark. Anti-corruption watchdogs report unprecedented attempts to interfere with investigations touching powerful political and business groups, including surveillance, political smears, and procedural harassment. NABU officials privately describe 2024–2025 as “the most difficult period since the bureau’s founding.”
European influence is now deeply embedded in Ukraine’s governance. Annual EU progress reports function as de facto performance audits, scrutinizing corruption risks, procurement practices, and judicial reform. Financial aid, reconstruction tranches, and political milestones, including EU accession talks, are increasingly tied to measurable anti-corruption benchmarks: maintaining NABU and SAPO’s staffing and independence, ensuring transparent case handling, and achieving verifiable results on high-level investigations. Programs such as EUACI provide technical expertise while simultaneously creating alternative oversight channels through civil society and investigative media.
Zelensky under dual pressure: battlefield and anti-corruption front
For Zelensky, the clash with anti-corruption institutions is politically perilous. While he remains the country’s most trusted figure, approval ratings have declined as the war enters its attritional phase, and internal divisions within the Servant of the People party are deepening. Some MPs openly accuse Andriy Yermak, the head of the Presidential Office, of blocking investigations that encroach on political allies or business partners. The European Commission’s latest progress report notes “limited advancement in prosecuting high-level corruption” and “persistent political influence” over state-owned enterprises — unusually blunt language for EU diplomatic standards.
The president is trapped between maintaining political cohesion at home and preserving strategic unity with Europe. Leaning too heavily in either direction immediately triggers backlash from the other side.
Toward the Defense Ministry: Ukraine’s next corruption fault line
Though Operation “Midas” focused on energy, threads point toward the Defense Ministry. Ukraine’s defense procurement system — sprawling, opaque, and operating under wartime secrecy — represents one of the largest pools of public spending. Before the war, defense corruption was estimated at $500–700 million annually; watchdogs warn that emergency wartime contracting may have raised that figure. NABU’s forays into defense procurement were previously restrained to avoid undermining morale or inadvertently helping Russia, but this restraint is eroding.
Several elements of the energy-sector investigation intersect with defense supply chains, including deals involving Israeli tactical equipment routed through offshore intermediaries. Former Defense Minister and current NSDC Secretary Rustem Umerov confirmed discussions with Mindich but insisted all dubious contracts were terminated before delivery. For NABU, tackling networks linked to the president’s close associates sets a precedent; stepping into defense procurement now seems not only plausible but likely inevitable.
The stakes for Europe are enormous. EU member states have contributed over €35 billion in military support since 2022. Any hint that funds were mismanaged or siphoned off could spark political fallout amid rising voter skepticism and looming 2025–2026 budget constraints.
Brussels as Ukraine’s unofficial supervisory board
Europe’s role has evolved from mentor to enforcer. Support for Ukraine is now conditional on governance performance: annual EU reports scrutinize institutional independence, procurement, and judicial reform; financial aid is tied to measurable anti-corruption outcomes; and programs such as EUACI supply both technical expertise and alternative oversight channels via civil society and media. The message delivered in summer 2025 was unusually direct: rollback of anti-corruption reforms would jeopardize Ukraine’s EU trajectory.
This creates a paradox for Kyiv. While the EU remains Ukraine’s strongest external supporter, it has become an uncompromising critic of domestic governance failures — especially high-level corruption.
The road ahead: the anti-corruption “second front” is widening
Ukraine faces an uncomfortable but unavoidable transition. The war has made corruption not merely a legal issue but an existential geopolitical concern. NABU has already crossed political red lines once thought untouchable. Its movement closer to the president’s inner circle signals a profound shift; its potential engagement with the Defense Ministry could redefine Ukraine’s wartime political landscape.
For Zelensky, the coming months may be the most delicate phase of his presidency. Allowing NABU to proceed risks destabilizing his political coalition and exposing uncomfortable truths within the wartime state. Constraining the bureau risks a rupture with the EU at a moment when Ukraine depends on Europe more than ever — financially, militarily, and diplomatically.
Europe once said, “Without Ukraine there is no Europe.” Today, the subtext is sharper: without genuine progress against corruption, there will be no European future for Ukraine. NABU — embattled, pressured, and politically exposed — has become the institution through which that future will be judged.
Comments