EU Scrutiny Over Ukraine’s Anti-Corruption Reversal Despite Zelenskyy’s U-Turn

Brussels: The European Union has expressed a cautious relief following Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy’s rapid reversal on legislation that initially threatened the independence of two pivotal anti-corruption agencies, but questions linger about the motivations behind the decision and its implications for Ukraine’s EU membership aspirations.

According to Radio Free Europe Radio Liberty, Zelenskyy had signed a controversial bill on July 22 that would have placed the National Anti-Corruption Bureau of Ukraine (NABU) and the Special Anti-Corruption Prosecutors Office (SAPO) under the Prosecutor General’s control, a post appointed by the president. This sparked immediate protests in Ukraine, despite Russian air strikes, as critics argued it compromised the agencies’ autonomy in a nation plagued by entrenched corruption. Within two days, Zelenskyy reversed course, introducing new legislation to preserve the institutions’ independence.

However, this legislative flip-flop has sparked speculation and criticism within the EU. A diplomat, speaking anonymously, suggested Zelenskyy undermined his position without clear justification, providing fodder for those in the EU who view Ukraine as inherently corrupt. Comparisons were drawn to former President Viktor Yanukovych’s era, known for attempts to control the judiciary, fueling concerns about Zelenskyy’s intentions.

Yanukovych was notably ousted in 2014 following the Maidan protests, which were triggered by his refusal to sign an EU association and free trade agreement, opting instead for closer ties with Moscow.

Criticism also targeted Andriy Yermak, Zelenskyy’s chief of office, a polarizing figure in European circles. Sources indicate lingering doubts about Zelenskyy and his administration’s true stance on power centralization.

Zelenskyy acknowledged that public demonstrations, marking the first significant dissent against the government since Russia’s full-scale invasion in February 2022, influenced his decision to reverse the legislation. EU officials viewed this reversal as a positive sign, reflecting a robust civil society and Zelenskyy’s democratic values, contrasting with recent democratic backsliding in countries like Georgia.

Pressure from Brussels may have also played a role in Zelenskyy’s decision. An EU official admitted that potential financial ramifications were considered, as Ukraine relies heavily on EU funds, conditioned on judicial reforms.

The establishment of NABU was a prerequisite for Ukraine’s 2017 visa liberalization with the EU. While suspension of this agreement was not openly proposed, the possibility was enough to unsettle Kyiv. Moreover, discussions about decoupling Ukraine from Moldova in the EU accession process, given Hungary’s reluctance to advance Ukraine’s talks, added to the pressure.

The EU’s internal discussions on this matter began in spring, with some member states criticizing Hungary’s stance. The EU may revisit this issue in early September, potentially favoring Moldova’s pro-EU government ahead of its parliamentary elections, despite concerns about fairness in yielding to Hungary’s “blackmailing.”

A contrast in anti-corruption efforts between Ukraine and Moldova emerged, particularly as Greek authorities arrested Moldovan oligarch Vladimir Plahotniuc, wanted for embezzling $1 billion from Chisinau, on the same day Ukraine’s controversial law was passed.

Rumors indicate EU leaders may have suggested to Zelenskyy at a recent Rome conference that Moldova could outpace Ukraine in the accession process. Coupled with reduced focus from the new U.S. administration, this may have prompted Zelenskyy to address longstanding issues with anti-corruption officials, potentially misjudging the situation or revealing underlying intentions. Regardless, the EU has taken note of these developments.