As Ukraine continues to defend its sovereignty against Russian aggression, another, quieter battle is taking shape within its own political system—a struggle over corruption, accountability, and the independence of key institutions. A new nationwide survey conducted by the Kyiv International Institute of Sociology (KIIS) reveals a deepening crisis of public trust in the government’s commitment to reform.
According to the findings, 71% of Ukrainians believe corruption has increased since Russia’s full-scale invasion began in 2022. Even more strikingly, 62% of those who still support President Volodymyr Zelenskyy share that view. For a leader once hailed as a champion of transparency and integrity, this growing disillusionment poses both a political and moral challenge.
Public Faith Erodes Amid War Fatigue
When Zelenskyy came to power in 2019, he promised to uproot Ukraine’s entrenched corruption and bring clean governance. His early years saw renewed vigor for reform, particularly through independent institutions like the National Anti-Corruption Bureau of Ukraine (NABU) and the Specialized Anti-Corruption Prosecutor’s Office (SAPO)—bodies created after the 2014 Euromaidan Revolution to investigate high-level graft.
However, the ongoing war appears to have strained those commitments. The KIIS data suggest that wartime conditions—marked by massive defense spending, emergency powers, and opaque procurement—have fueled perceptions that corruption has once again become systemic.
Only 20% of Ukrainians believe the situation has remained unchanged, while a mere 5% think corruption has decreased. Zelenskyy’s once-commanding approval ratings are slipping: a Gallup poll in August 2025 placed his trust rating at 58%, down sharply from the wartime highs of over 80%.
A Legislative Backlash: The July Flashpoint
The breaking point came in July 2025, when Zelenskyy’s administration introduced a controversial bill that sought to place NABU and SAPO under greater presidential oversight. The legislation gave the president’s office indirect control over key appointments, allowed for the dismissal of anti-corruption officials for “inefficiency,” and expanded prosecutorial powers to override ongoing investigations.
Critics denounced the move as a direct assault on institutional independence. Zelenskyy defended it as an effort to “modernize” anti-corruption structures and align them with European standards—but the public wasn’t convinced.
Thousands of protesters flooded Kyiv’s Independence Square, waving banners that read “Hands off NABU!” and “No return to corruption.” The demonstrations, the largest since Russia’s invasion, forced Zelenskyy to retreat within 48 hours. He withdrew the law and promised a new draft to “guarantee full independence” for anti-graft bodies, under international monitoring.
Even Ukraine’s strongest allies expressed alarm. The G7 ambassadors and EU officials warned that any political interference could endanger Ukraine’s €50 billion aid package and jeopardize EU accession talks. Human Rights Watch called the bill a “direct undercut” of post-Maidan reforms, while Transparency International said it risked “reversing a decade of progress.”
The incident exposed growing fractures within Zelenskyy’s own Servant of the People party, dividing reformists and security hardliners. As one protester told BBC News, “We fight Russia for freedom, not to hand power back to the corrupt at home.”
An Institutional Showdown: SBU vs. NABU
If the July protests represented a public pushback, the following months have witnessed a more dangerous internal confrontation—between the Security Service of Ukraine (SBU) and NABU.
The SBU, long considered close to the President’s Office, launched a series of raids on NABU headquarters in late July and August 2025. Five NABU officers were detained on accusations of “high treason” and alleged ties to Russian intelligence. The SBU published footage of seized documents and claimed to have uncovered FSB communications.
NABU officials dismissed the charges as politically motivated. They argued that the SBU’s actions were a direct response to NABU’s investigations into corruption among Zelenskyy’s loyalists. One high-profile probe centered on Tymur Mindich, a presidential aide accused of amassing unexplained wealth through defense procurement contracts. Reports suggest Mindich’s family assets ballooned from modest holdings to luxury properties and offshore accounts worth over €10 million since 2022.
NABU was also investigating SBU officers for allegedly running a $300,000 extortion racket and several oligarch-linked firms for misusing humanitarian aid.
The conflict quickly turned public. SBU chief Vasyl Maliuk accused NABU of “sabotage,” while NABU director Semen Kryvyi fired back, calling the raids “a smear campaign designed to protect the powerful.”
By September, tensions had escalated further. The SBU released so-called “evidence” implicating a NABU official’s family in business activities in occupied territories—claims NABU described as fabricated. Reuters and The Kyiv Independent reported widespread searches and a climate of intimidation, sparking fears of a broader purge against anti-corruption officials.
Why It Matters: Ukraine’s European Future at Risk?
These internal clashes couldn’t come at a more sensitive moment. Ukraine’s Western partners have made it clear that anti-corruption progress is a non-negotiable condition for EU accession and continued financial aid.
The European Commission’s July assessment praised Ukraine’s resilience but flagged “persistent integrity risks in public spending.” U.S. officials, too, are privately warning Kyiv that any rollback of anti-graft independence could weaken bipartisan support for continued military assistance.
Billions in Western aid have already faced scrutiny over procurement irregularities—ranging from inflated ammunition prices to “ghost soldiers” on payrolls.
For Zelenskyy, whose leadership has been defined by wartime courage and international diplomacy, the domestic fight against corruption now represents an equally critical front. His credibility, both at home and abroad, depends on whether he can uphold the transparency Ukraine promised to its citizens and partners.
The Moral Test of Wartime Democracy
Beyond politics, the issue strikes at the heart of Ukraine’s national identity. The revolution of 2014 was not just a revolt against Moscow’s influence—it was a revolt against internal corruption and oligarchic dominance.
Now, as air raid sirens continue to echo over Kyiv, many Ukrainians fear that history is repeating itself. Civil society organizations like the Anti-Corruption Action Center (AntAC) have vowed to keep up the pressure, promising legal challenges and continued public oversight.
As one KIIS survey respondent put it:
“We can’t beat Putin if we’re busy robbing ourselves.”
Ukraine’s struggle is no longer just military—it’s moral. The outcome of this internal battle will determine not only the fate of Zelenskyy’s presidency but also whether Ukraine’s hard-won democracy can survive the temptations of wartime power.
In the end, the question is stark: Can Ukraine emerge from this war both free and clean?
As autumn settles over Kyiv, the answer remains uncertain—but the stakes could not be higher.
