The Corruption Needs to End

The strategic interests of the United States during and after the Russia-Ukraine war remain constant: the balance of power in Europe must favor the West collectively and the U.S. specifically. Russia must not be allowed to shift this balance, and Ukrainian survival as an independent country integrated into European economic and security structures remains in America’s national interest.

If this is to be achieved, however, American policy must adjust to the prevailing sentiment in Washington – and many capitals around the globe – that views Ukrainian elites as corrupt. Those who recognize America’s enduring national interests in Europe and wish to support and save Ukraine acknowledge that Kyiv must address its corruption problem, and they must do so with urgency.

U.S. policy on aid to Ukraine is undergoing a sea change. President Donald Trump has publicly suggested that Kyiv has mishandled if not misappropriated, half of the American financial aid distributed to the nation. Elon Musk, in his capacity as a senior advisor to the president in charge of the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), has echoed concerns about the alleged lack of accountability with regard to how Ukraine spends foreign assistance. At the same time, both Trump and Musk are openly critical of the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), the agency that provides most of the funding for Ukrainian civil institutions, with Musk posting on X that he was “feeding USAID into the woodchipper.”

To achieve the dual goals of Ukraine’s independence and aid transparency, it is evident that Ukraine must tackle the widespread corruption that has become endemic to the Eastern European country. This is essential for making the country resilient against Russian aggression and attracting the level of foreign investment necessary for post-war rehabilitation and reconstruction. White House Ukraine policy supports Kyiv’s emerging anti-graft bodies, which depend on Western technical and financial support, and ensuring they receive the sunlight they deserve against the backdrop of the upcoming Ukrainian elections, which the U.S. now views as a vital component of the peace process. Those who have the authority to investigate corruption in a nation where graft is widespread dictate the election agenda and narrative.

Recommended

JD Vance Hits Back at Agitators Who Terrified His Three-Year-Old Daughter Sarah Arnold

Advertisement

Until recently, most of the U.S. foreign financial assistance aimed at combating corruption in developing countries wasdistributed through USAID and the Department of State. Between 2014 and 2018, the U.S. channeled $115 millionannually through these agencies for activities to discourage corrupt practices by promoting prevention and accountability. Ukraine, Haiti, and various Latin American countries have been the primary recipients. The results thus far are mixed, with some recipients teetering on the edge of state collapse.

In most cases, anti-corruption efforts arise from grassroots movements and are indigenous, such as in Hong Kong and Singapore. Since 2015, hundreds of millions of dollars have been allocated in Ukraine to the so-called “anti-corruption vertical,” a U.S.-assisted framework of agencies established to tackle systemic corruption. This includes more than $50 million invested in 2022 and 2023 alone to the National Anti-Corruption Bureau of Ukraine (NABU), the Specialized Anti-Corruption Prosecutor’s Office (SAP), and the High Anti-Corruption Court.

The result? Corruption remains rampant, with many Ukrainians considering it a major issue. In fact, a recent pollsuggests that almost 70% of Ukrainians believe that corruption has “increased a lot” over the last year. NABU’s founding director was convicted in 2019 for failing to disclose lavish gifts. Last year, over 40 leading Ukrainian businessmen complained to President Zelensky accusing the law enforcement agencies of engaging in extortion and pressuring private businesses, leading to his call for a “moral contract” between business and government.

Critics say that “the vertical” has largely failed to investigate high-profile corruption cases and was, in fact, influenced by authorities, both from inside and outside of Ukraine. Some of NABU’s decisions are particularly troubling. NABU passed on investigating Hunter Biden over his involvement in the Burisma scandal while allegedly leaking its dossier on then Trump campaign manager, Paul Manafort. The leak was immediately weaponized by the Democrats against Trump and ended up being one of the key topics in Robert Mueller’s investigation of the first term president. In 2018, a court in Kyiv ruled that NABU’s then-director, Artem Sytnyk, acted unlawfully by interfering in the U.S. election to help Hillary Clinton and subsequently ordered his dismissal from the post. Allegations surfaced that a voice captured in audio recordings leaked in 2019 confessing efforts to “help Hillary” by digging for dirt on Manafort was that of Sytnyk. The then-head of another anti-graft agency, SAP, confirmed that he heard Sytnyk bragging about it more than once.

NABU and other Ukrainian anti-corruption institutions will face increased scrutiny in the coming weeks as Musk’s appointees aim to uncover more evidence of inefficiency and alleged undue influence over these agencies by Democrats for partisan gain. As U.S.-Ukraine relations fundamentally shift under Trump, the system of specialized anti-corruption agencies in Ukraine is likely to undergo a significant overhaul, if not complete dismantling. Nevertheless, Washington’s strategic goal should remain ensuring Ukraine’s survival and development as an independent nation rather than abandoning it to America’s adversaries due to futile ideological and political disputes of a domestic variety. Towards this end, Kyiv should prioritize efforts to make certain that its anti-corruption institutions serve Ukraine’s security and future democratic resilience while promoting foreign investment and the rule of law.