Ukraine’s EU path falters after Zelenskyy neuters anti-corruption institutions

For many in Kyiv’s civil society, the threat to democracy no longer comes from Moscow’s tanks, but from inside Ukraine’s own presidential office.

The timing could not have been worse. Just as the EU was poised to fast-track Ukraine’s accession, Kyiv dismantled the very institutions that made that goal credible.

By stripping anti-corruption bodies of independence and fracturing the post-Maidan consensus, President Volodymyr Zelenskyy triggered the first major anti-government protests since Russia’s full scale invasion.

Zelenskyy’s decision to sign legislation subordinating NABU and SAPO, Ukraine’s two flagship anti-corruption bodies, to his own prosecutor general has shattered a decade of reformist gains since the 2014 EuroMaidan revolution.

That revolution began when then-president Viktor Yanukovych abruptly abandoned EU integration. Now, a decade later, Zelenskyy stands accused of the same betrayal in reverse: dismantling the very institutions built to fulfil the promises of the Revolution of Dignity.

The new law has sparked the largest protests since the war began, triggered a blunt EU rebuke, and collapsed a covert Brussels plan to bypass Hungary’s veto and launch accession talks this summer.

For many in Kyiv’s civil society, the threat to democracy no longer comes from Moscow’s tanks, but from inside Ukraine’s own presidential office.

The law that lit the fire

In less than 24 hours, Ukraine dismantled the legal firewall that had kept its anti-corruption institutions at arm’s length from political power.

The new law, signed by President Volodymyr Zelenskyy on the evening of July 22, the same day it passed a vote in Ukraine’s uni-cameral parliament, subordinates the National Anti-Corruption Bureau (NABU) and the Specialised Anti-Corruption Prosecutor’s Office (SAPO) to the authority of the prosecutor general, a political appointee selected by the president.

Until now, NABU and SAPO operated independently, investigating and prosecuting high-level corruption cases without interference from politicians.

That arrangement was designed in 2015 to meet EU and IMF conditions following the 2014 EuroMaidan revolution.

The new legislation changes that. It gives the prosecutor general power to oversee anti-corruption prosecutors directly and to reassign or shut down cases entirely.

As Semen Kryvonos, head of NABU, put it in a joint press conference with SAPO chief Oleksandr Klymenko, the bill “effectively signals the destruction of the independence of the two anti-corruption institutions.”

Critics say the law re-politicises the justice system at the highest level. Ukraine’s current prosecutor general, Ruslan Kravchenko, was nominated personally by Zelenskyy.

Kravchenko has publicly promised not to interfere in NABU’s work. “Why don’t you trust me?” he asked journalists on July 22, but the legal authority to do so is now fully in his hands.

Lack of transparency

The method of passing the law has also drawn outrage among civil society groups. The changes were introduced not as a standalone bill, but as last-minute amendments to an unrelated piece of legislation.

MPs received the revised text only minutes before the vote. “The table [with amendments] appeared fifteen minutes before the vote in the hall,” said Anastasia Radina, chair of the parliament’s anti-corruption committee.

“The draft law was pushed through despite clear procedural violations,” added Inna Sovsun of the opposition Holos party.

Despite the rushed process, the bill passed easily: 263 votes in favour, out of 324 present. Speaker Ruslan Stefanchuk signed the legislation within hours, and Zelenskyy ratified it that same evening. By nightfall, Ukraine’s anti-corruption architecture had been gutted.

Transparency International Ukraine also denounced Parliament’s move, warning that it puts at risk “one of the country’s greatest achievements since the Revolution of Dignity.”

Who benefits and why now

Zelenskyy claimed the reforms were necessary to purge Russian influence inside the anti-corruption institutions and kickstart stalled prosecutions. But to many, the law looks less like reform and more like a power grab, timed to neutralise mounting legal pressure on Zelenskyy’s inner circle.

In recent months, Ukraine’s flagship anti-corruption bodies had begun to close in on people close to the President’s Office. Former Deputy Prime Minister Oleksiy Chernyshov was charged with bribery and abuse of power in June this year.

Investigators also targeted a relative of Timur Mindich, a business partner and co-owner of Zelenskyy’s Kvartal 95 production company.

Anti-corruption activist Vitalii Shabunin, one of the most prominent public critics of the President’s Office, has been targeted with raids and criminal proceedings.

And earlier this month, Deputy Prime Minister Olha Stefanishyna, Kyiv’s chief negotiator on EU integration, was pushed out in a sudden reshuffle.

Whether by design or not, the result is the same: the anti-corruption system is no longer a threat to the powerful.

The shift in Washington may also have emboldened Kyiv. Donald Trump’s return to the White House ended active US oversight of Ukraine’s domestic reforms, freezing USAID programmes that had previously financed rule-of-law initiatives and civil society watchdogs.

Analysts and investigators interviewed by the Kyiv Independent suggest the timing of the law reflects a domestic calculus: with parliamentary elections suspended and Western oversight weakening, Zelenskyy seized the opportunity to consolidate control before public or foreign backlash could coalesce.

A recent poll found that more than half of Ukrainians now believe President Zelenskyy is concentrating too much power in his own hands.

The Ukrainian street says no

The backlash was immediate and widespread. Thousands of protesters flooded Kyiv’s Maidan square for two nights running, with parallel demonstrations erupting in Lviv, Dnipro, Odessa and Sumy, despite nightly Russian missile alerts.

Placards made their point with fury: “12414 sounds like 1984,” “Parliament is full of parasites,” and “The Heavenly Hundred see everything,” refers to the protesters killed during Ukraine’s 2014 EuroMaidan revolution.

In Kyiv, 22-year-old protester Diana Lamanets held a sign that read “The Armed Forces will not forgive.”

She explained: “People died for European integration. Young men are defending our country. And the authorities are passing laws that negate all these human sacrifices.”

These are the largest anti-government protests since Russia’s full-scale invasion in February 2022. Many see the new law as the moment Zelenskyy crossed a line from legitimate wartime leadership into permanent power consolidation.

That fear was given voice by Oleksiy Goncharenko, a centrist MP from European Solidarity, who said on TVP World: “There are autocratic tendencies in Ukraine already for many months. Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely.”

For younger Ukrainians who came of age after 2014, the rollback of reforms feels like a generational betrayal.

From EU accession to alarm

Ukraine was granted EU candidate status in June 2022, just months after Russia’s full-scale invasion.

Accession talks formally began in June 2024, with the first phase, screening Ukrainian law for compliance with EU standards, set to conclude by autumn 2025. The process had moved unusually fast, propelled by wartime solidarity and Kyiv’s efforts to meet key reform benchmarks, particularly on rule of law and anti-corruption.

In July 2025, Brussels was preparing to open Cluster One, the first and most politically sensitive group of negotiation chapters, covering judiciary reform, public administration, and anti-corruption institutions.

Just weeks ago, Ukraine was poised for this breakthrough. After months of obstruction by Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán, the European Commission and key member states quietly finalised a workaround.

The first negotiating cluster, “Fundamentals,” would open on 18 July without the normally required formal vote.

Kyiv’s Deputy Prime Minister for European Integration, Olha Stefanishyna, was preparing to fly to Brussels for the ceremony alongside her Moldovan counterpart, Ukraine’s accession twin.

But then the process unravelled. On July 9, the Ukrainian government overturned the EU-monitored selection process for the new head of the Bureau of Economic Security (BEB), a vital agency for prosecuting financial crimes.

Days later, law enforcement officers raided the home of prominent anti-corruption activist Vitalii Shabunin without a warrant. The timing sent a chilling message: Kyiv’s reformers were being targeted.

Then Stefanishyna was removed from her post in a government reshuffle, just as negotiations reached their most delicate stage.

The final straw came on July 22, when Ukraine’s parliament, the Verkhovna Rada, passed the law gutting the independence of NABU and SAPO.

Ironically, by weakening its democratic safeguards, Kyiv risks validating the very arguments Orbán has used to justify blocking Ukraine’s path: that the country is unready for European norms.

Europe reacts

Brussels’ response was to stall the entire process. “This step will have serious consequences for the entire negotiation process regarding Ukraine’s accession to the EU,” Enlargement Commissioner Marta Kos told Ukraine’s new EU integration minister, Taras Kachka.

“Fighting corruption is one of the basics on the way to become an EU member and it is a precondition that the state has independent anti-corruption agencies," Kos said speaking to TVP World.

European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen conveyed her concern directly to Zelenskyy. “The respect for the rule of law and the fight against corruption are core elements of the European Union,” said her spokesperson. “There cannot be a compromise.”

Poland’s Foreign Minister Radosław Sikorski delivered the bluntest warning during an interview with TVP World: “As a corrupt country, Ukraine will not make it into the EU,” adding “it is up to President Zelenskyy to fix this.”

Sikorski didn’t stop there. “Please don’t give Hungary the pretext to continue the veto,” he said, referring to Orbán’s obstruction of cluster one. “Russian propaganda will be delighted by this.”

For Vladimir Putin, the spectacle of Ukraine dismantling its own democratic reforms may prove more effective than tanks, undermining the very narrative of belonging to Europe that has defined Ukraine’s resistance.

The price

The damage is already visible. Moldova, once coupled with Ukraine in a joint EU accession track, is now expected to move forward alone.

Brussels had planned to open negotiation chapters with both countries in parallel, but with Kyiv now off course, Chișinău may break free from the pairing.

The OECD has warned the Ukrainian president’s office that the weakening of anti-corruption institutions could chill investment and slow reconstruction financing.

EU financial aid is under review. While there are no immediate sanctions, suspensions, or visa measures under discussion, Economy Commissioner Valdis Dombrovskis told the Financial Times that financial assistance to Ukraine is “conditional on transparency, judicial reforms [and] democratic governance.”

Reaction at home

For many in Ukraine’s civil society, the post-Maidan dream was always defined by the independence of the judiciary and the anti-corruption system. That’s now in ruins.

Anastasiia Radina, the former chair of the parliament’s anti-corruption committee, put it bluntly: “The building is not just on fire, it’s burned to embers already.”

Ukrainian historian Yaroslav Hrytsak did not mince words. “This is a coup d’état, not in terms of a change of government, but in terms of the principles on which a government should operate,” he said.

Too little, too late

On July 23, under mounting pressure at home and abroad, Zelenskyy convened an emergency meeting with the heads of NABU, SAPO, the prosecutor general’s office, and other top law enforcement bodies. He acknowledged the scale of the backlash: “We hear society’s voice”, and promised a new legislative package to preserve the anti-corruption agencies’ independence.

In his nightly address, Zelenskyy vowed to draft a bill guaranteeing “real tools” and “full independence” for NABU and SAPO, and pledged to uphold the legal standards required for EU accession.

But critics remain sceptical. No details of the new law have been released, and neither NABU nor SAPO has confirmed it would reverse the core changes already enacted.

Meanwhile, the agencies themselves warn that their ability to investigate has already been compromised. In a joint statement, they said the law strips them of the protections that allowed them to carry out their work “without fear or favour.”

Ukraine is still fighting a brutal war against Russia. But with this law, the fight for Ukraine’s democratic legitimacy, is a new front line.

A version of this article first appeared at TVP World.