The European Union has breathed a collective sigh of relief after Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy’s swift U-turn this week over legislation that would have limited the independence of two key anti-corruption agencies.

But questions and speculation remain about what triggered it, what it says about Kyiv’s ruling class and how it will affect the war-torn country’s chances to join the bloc.

On July 22, Zelenskyy signed a bill approved by parliament that placed the National Anti-Corruption Bureau of Ukraine (NABU) and the Special Anti-Corruption Prosecutor’s Office (SAPO) under the auspices of the Prosecutor General, a position appointed by the president.

Within hours Ukrainians, despite Russian air strikes earlier in the day, took to the streets to protest the move, which critics said took away the independence of the institutions in a country long know for deep-seated corruption.

The response also was immediate from Brussels to the Ukrainian parliament and president rushing through the legislation.

Both the European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen and the president of the European Council, Antonio Costa, called Zelenskyy demanding an explanation and expressing “strong concerns.”

European enlargement commissioner Marta Kos said in a post on X that “independent bodies like NABU and SAPO are essential for Ukraine’s EU path.”

Within two days Zelenskyy had done an about-face, putting forward new legislation that would reverse course and ensure independence for NABU and SAPO.

But the damage was already done.

Speaking on condition of anonymity, one diplomat said Zelenskyy “really had managed to shoot himself in the foot for no apparent reason” as it gave ample ammunition to the many in the 27-nation bloc who claim that Kyiv just is hopelessly corrupt.

Another noted that it seemed that Ukraine suddenly had transported back to the era of former President Viktor Yanukovych, who constantly battled to control the judiciary.

Yanukovych was ousted from power in 2014 during the Maidan protests, sparked by his decision not to sign a political association and free trade deal with the EU, instead choosing closer ties with Moscow.

Grumblings over this week’s legislative rollercoaster were also directed against Zelenskyy’s head of office, Andriy Yermak, a powerful but deeply polarizing figure in European circles.

Sources said questions persist if this in fact was the “real face” of Zelenskyy and his entourage given that many officials have long held fears about what they call his “tendencies to want to centralize power.”

Zelenskyy admitted that demonstrations in the country, the first such show of defiance against the government since Russia launched its full-scale the invasion in February 2022, had made him change his mind.

EU officials saw the change as positive — signaling both a healthy and powerful civil society that also highlighted Zelenskyy’s democratic credentials — in contrast with the considerable backsliding, for example, that has been seen recently in Georgia.

It appears as though pressure from Brussels may have also helped Zelenskyy’s decision.

Everything was on the table, admits one official, and the bloc made that known.

That would mean freezing some of the billions of euros in funds that the EU provides Ukraine on a regular basis. A lot of this cash is conditioned on reform efforts, notably when it comes to the judiciary.

Visa Liberalization

One of the benchmarks for Ukraine to get visa liberalization to the bloc back in 2017 was the setting up of NABU. While no one was openly suggesting the suspension of visa liberalization, as is currently being mooted with Tbilisi, the threat of looking into it was enough to rattle Kyiv.

Then there was the delicate issue of de-coupling Ukraine from Moldova, allowing the latter to proceed alone in the EU accession process. That would be a heavy blow to Ukraine given the pair so far have moved closer to membership hand in hand.

The discussion about this started in Brussels in the spring with Hungary reluctant to give green light to Kyiv to start accession talks.

The idea was very much alive before the latest developments in Ukraine and EU officials have indicated to RFE/RL that it may come up again in early September with the view of giving Moldova’s ruling pro-EU government a boost before its crucial parliamentary election later that same month.

The fact that Hungary appears to be unlikely to change its position on the issue ahead of its own national elections in April next year, has made the issue even more pressing.

Many EU member states believe that this decoupling would be unfair as it essentially would give in to Budapest’s “blackmailing.”

Yet some diplomats admitted that the latest events had weakened their argument, regardless of the subsequent Ukrainian backtracking.

Highlighting the diverging paths, the same day Ukraine’s parliament approved the controversial law, Greek police arrested the Moldovan oligarch Vladimir Plahotniuc, arguably the country’s most wanted man.

A former politician and one of Moldova’s richest people, Plahotniuc is allegedly the mastermind behind the theft of $1 billion from Chisinau a decade ago — a charge he denies.

At this moment, Moldova’s and Ukraine’s efforts to fight corruption couldn’t have contrasted more in the eyes of some in Brussels.

Interestingly, there is a feeling in Brussels that the Ukrainian frustration with the Hungarian veto and the bloc’s inability to deal with it could have driven Zelenskiy to care less about EU “hobby horses” such as corruption.

Rumors are swirling that several of the bloc’s leaders told him at a recent conference in Rome that he should be ready to accept that Moldova might move ahead of Ukraine.

That, coupled with less focus on the issue from the new American administration, gave him an opportunity to deal with long-standing nuisances such as pesky anti-corruption officials, diplomatic sources said.

He may have overplayed his hand on this occasion or possibly revealed it. Either way, the EU has taken note.

Initially, it appeared the Ukrainian leader was set to brazen it out, determined to shrug off demonstrators that included war veterans and active-duty soldiers alongside civilians. But the rallies ballooned across the country and public outrage only intensified, with frontline soldiers also denouncing the law on social media.

Then, prominent civil society activists let rip too: Vitaly Shabunin, head of the Anti-Corruption Action Center and currently the subject of a government probe that his supporters argue is based on trumped-up allegations, warned: “Zelenskyy’s prosecutor general will stop investigations against all the president’s friends.”

Some also cautioned that the agitation could spark a popular uprising like the one that toppled then-President Viktor Yanukovych in 2014. “We are now in the face of the most dangerous development in all the years since Maidan,” wrote Sevgil Musayeva, editor-in-chief of the Ukrainska Pravda newspaper. And like others, she hazarded that Zelenskyy’s powerful Chief of Staff Andriy Yermak was behind the move, amid signs that NABU is preparing cases against presidential insiders.

Eventually, with public uproar mounting, Ukraine’s president bowed to the pressure and agreed to restore the independence of the agencies — a new law turning back the clock is meant to be voted on Thursday. But why did he fail to realize the likelihood of such a ferocious reaction in the first place? Is it simply the arrogance of power or is it a sense of impunity?

Among the insiders currently under investigation are former Deputy Prime Minister Oleksiy Chernyshov and former Deputy Head of the Office of the President Rostyslav Shurma. Shurma was dismissed last year, after it emerged his brother was receiving green subsidies from the Ukrainian government for solar plants operating in Russian-occupied Donbas. Coincidentally, Shurma’s Munich home was raided by NABU investigators and German police in mid-July.

“It is critical not to lose the unity. To listen to people, to have dialogue, and so on,” Zelenskyy told reporters at a press briefing on Friday, explaining his about-face and consequent decision to restore the independence of the agencies in question.

The stunning turnaround took less than 72 hours: On July 22, President Volodymyr Zelenskyy signed a bill that protesters across Ukraine and crucial backers of Kyiv in the West said stripped two key anti-corruption agencies of their autonomy, threatening to reverse years of progress on justice and the rule of law.

On July 24, Zelenskyy submitted new legislation that he said would guarantee the independence of the National Anti-Corruption Bureau of Ukraine (NABU) and the Specialized Anti-Corruption Prosecutor’s Office (SAPO).

The agencies praised the new bill and urged parliament, the Verkhovna Rada, to pass it as soon as possible, while protesters said they would keep up the pressure until they are certain the threat has dissipated. A vote could come late next week.

Here’s what the climbdown could mean for Ukraine, its people, and its president.

A Sign of Strength…

The reason the initial bill sparked such a swift and angry reaction is that NABU and SAPO were seen as both symbols and actual, operating examples of democratic progress in Ukraine since independence in 1991 and, in particular, since the Maidan protests pushed a Moscow-friendly president whose rule was marred by corruption from power in 2014.

Formed in 2015, NABU investigates corruption among state institutions, and some of its probes have embarrassed senior officials. The loss of that function would be a major setback, and opponents of the bill saw it as a major step toward tighter state control and authoritarianism under Zelenskyy and his powerful chief of staff, Andriy Yermak.

Zelenskyy defended the bill by saying it was needed to remove Russian influence from anti-corruption efforts, raising concern that he was using Moscow’s war against Ukraine, now in its fourth year since the full-scale invasion, as a pretext to consolidate power in the hands of his administration and the state – and, ironically, handing the Kremlin a gift.

Protests over the bill marked a substantial break in the wartime unity that has helped Ukraine resist a Russian assault which, in the absence of such a strong, collective response, could have led to Kyiv’s defeat. To some, Zelenskyy’s turnaround is evidence of democratic processes at work — a sign of strength.

Or Weakness?

To others, it may be a sign of weakness or a lack of resolve. The fast flip-flop raises questions about why Zelenskyy and his Servant of the People party proposed the initial bill in the first place.

Wartime unity has been a boon for Zelenskyy, keeping Ukraine’s sometimes raucous politics at bay, for the most part, as the imperative of resistance against Russia tamps down divisions. The demonstrations against the bill were the most widespread protests on a political issue since the start of the full-scale invasion.

But Zelenskyy’s move to patch up the damage done by the initial bill is far from a guarantee against future steps that could stoke worries of authoritarianism. And even if the newer bill succeeds in quashing the protests and easing concerns in the West, the crack in that unity could bring political tussles further out into the open and embolden opponents of Zelenskyy.

‘Ukraine Is Not Russia’

One of the false narratives underpinning Moscow’s war is Russian President Vladimir Putin’s baseless assertion that Russians and Ukrainians are “one people.” But Zelenskyy’s reversal is stark evidence of a fact that former Ukrainian President Leonid Kuchma made the title of a book: Ukraine is not Russia.

The very existence of anti-corruption bodies with the autonomy and wherewithal to investigate state officials is a marker of the different paths Ukraine and Russia have taken since Putin came to power in 2000 and set about tightening Kremlin control over politics and society – a domestic clampdown that went into overdrive with the invasion of Ukraine.

And the phenomenon that has been played out in Ukraine this week – the government making a major shift in direction under pressure from protesters – is one that Putin has gone to great lengths to try to ensure could not happen in Russia, where top-down pressure is the norm and the Kremlin uses an array of levers, from restrictive legislation to police violence, to quash protests, curb civilian society, and silence dissent.

A Wary West?

Given Kyiv’s need for massive Western military and monetary support for its fight against the Russian invasion, it seems certain that admonitions from European nations and from some quarters in Washington played a big part in Zelenskyy’s decision to submit the new bill on July 24.

Ukraine’s Western backers will breathe a sigh of relief if the crisis blows over. But the strongly worded criticism from several leaders in Europe suggests that Kyiv’s supporters abroad have been rattled by the developments and may be on guard for future signs of backsliding that throw further hurdles across its already slow path to EU membership.

Young Generation

The protests that emerged swiftly when the Rada passed the bill on July 22 and continued after Zelenskyy submitted the new legislation on July 24 skewed youthful. Many of the Ukrainian who hit the streets in Kyiv and other cities such as Lviv in the west and Dnipro, not far from the front line, would have been children or teens at the time of the Maidan.

Their activism and initiative seems to show that the even under the Russian onslaught, many younger Ukrainians see the progress Ukraine has made since then, and since independence in 1991, is something like the status quo — a right that they consider worth defending when they see the state seeking to reverse those gains.

With reporting by RFE/RL’s Ukrainian Service

Politics At Sam And Anne’s: Will Rachel Reeves’ sums ever add up?

It is arguably the number one issue facing the government – how do they get the economy thriving and growing again.

Sam and Anne are joined by our economics and data editor Ed Conway to weigh up the options on the table for Rachel Reeves.

Ahead of a crucial budget in the autumn, the trio address:

How will the chancellor fill the black hole in the public finances?

Are tax changes on the horizon?

Will there be more nationalisation?

Plus, there is still some time to predict if Rachel Reeves will remain in Number 11 Downing Street, after a tumultuous year in office.

Sam and Anne are getting a lie-in over summer recess, but they’ll be in your feed with special episodes every Monday before normal services resumes on 1 September.

👉Listen to Politics At Sam And Anne’s on your podcast app👈

The National Anti-Corruption Bureau (NABU) and the Specialised Anti-Corruption Prosecutor’s Office (SAPO), while conducting surveillance in a flat where President Volodymyr Zelenskyy celebrated his birthday five years ago, recorded the voice of Timur Mindich, a businessman and co-owner of Kvartal 95, the Ukrainian production company Volodymyr Zelenskyy founded before he became president.

Source: an investigation by Ukrainska Pravda

Details: Ukrainska Pravda sources in business circles said that employees of NABU and SAPO “managed to record Mindich in a flat at the same address where the president’s birthday celebration took place five years ago”.

Advertisement:

The sources also claim that the recordings may feature the president himself. However, law enforcement agencies have released no information about the tapes, so it remains unclear whether Mindich’s conversations involved any corrupt dealings.

Background:

Earlier, Ukrainska Pravda, citing an influential source in anti-corruption agencies, reported that NABU and SAPO were preparing a notice of suspicion for Mindich. This source also linked the president’s recent pushback against anti-corruption agencies – which began earlier this week and triggered protests in the streets – to this investigation.

“In general, we believe they acted preventively because they found out that NABU was preparing a notice of suspicion for Timur Mindich,” the source told Ukrainska Pravda.

Support Ukrainska Pravda on Patreon!