On the evening of July 22nd, local time, thousands gathered outside the Ivan Franko Theatre in Kyiv, Ukraine’s capital. This location is directly opposite the office of Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy. The crowd did not demand his resignation but instead, various banners called for him not to sign the “Special Amendment to the Criminal Procedure Code During a State of Emergency” against Ukraine.
The timing of Zelenskyy’s actions was closely watched. As anti-corruption investigations were targeting core members of the president’s office, Zelenskyy, by amending the law, stripped the independence of two of Ukraine’s most important anti-corruption agencies—the National Anti-Corruption Bureau (NABU) and the Special Anti-Corruption Prosecutor Office (SAPO)—and placed them entirely under the leadership of the Attorney General’s Office. Ruslan Klavchenko, who had just taken office a month earlier and was Zelenskyy’s loyal supporter, was also known for being involved in corruption scandals and had been judged unfit to be an anti-corruption prosecutor during his campaign.
On July 21st, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy met with government officials, members of the National Security and Defense Committee, and representatives of the Armed Forces in Kyiv. Photo/Visual China
Some Ukrainian media described Zelenskyy’s actions as “betraying everyone”: he abandoned the values he claimed to fight for and blocked Ukraine’s path to EU membership. The European Truth reported that the EU’s enlargement commissioner, Kostina, made a special phone call to the top officials of the Zelenskyy administration at the “last minute,” warning them, but this was ignored just like the protests outside the presidential office. On the night of July 22nd, he signed the bill amidst a protest.
The next day, the demonstration spread to several major cities, evolving into the largest domestic protest in Ukraine since 2022.
On the evening, the deputy editor of Ukraine’s Truth Daily, Tomas Istomińa, returned to the Evangelical Theatre in Ivan Franko. He found that the protestors were “three times more numerous” than the previous day. The President of the European Commission, Ursula von der Leyen, also expressed “strong concerns,” demanding an explanation from Zelensky.
The third day saw Zelensky withdraw the bill and promised to introduce a new one to ensure the independence of anti-corruption agencies. The scale of the protests then decreased, essentially coming to an end by the 26th. The Ukrainian Supreme Council, which has been on summer recess, will hold an emergency meeting on July 31 to vote on the new bill.
The Kyiv Post pointed out that regardless of the content of the new bill, the damage caused by this incident is already done. “Restoring the trust of Ukrainian citizens, soldiers, and Western partners is very difficult.”
On July 22 and 24, Zelensky defended his actions twice, only one reason put forward: the need to eliminate the “Russian influence” in the anti-corruption department. On the night before Zelensky signed the bill, the Ukrainian Security Service and other departments conducted a surprise search of the National Anti-Corruption Agency and the Special Prosecutor Office for Anti-Corruption. The reason was that some employees of the National Anti-Corruption Agency had “contacts with Russia.”
This action was carried out by Semen Kryvonenko, head of the National Anti-Corruption Agency, and Oleksandr Chermayneko, chief anti-corruption prosecutor, while they were on a business trip in the UK. Upon learning about the news, Kryvonenko and Chermayneko hurriedly ended their trip and returned to Ukraine. The National Anti-Corruption Agency immediately pointed out that the security service’s search lacked a search warrant. During the operation, the security personnel used violence against officials of the Anti-Corruption Agency and began to inspect and check all actions and investigation data of both anti-corruption agencies, potentially undermining ongoing anti-corruption investigations.
The Ukrainian Security Service claimed that the operation was not in vain, as they had detained at least two anti-corruption bureau officials believed to be connected with Russia. One of them is Ruslan Mahamedrasolov, the regional detective head of the Anti-Corruption Bureau in Dnipropetrovsk and Zaporizhzhia regions. He was accused of “selling cannabis” to Russian territory and has a father from Russia. Another unnamed official was detained, reportedly receiving instructions from a former Ukrainian government official recruited by the Russian intelligence agency.
However, these allegations have been widely questioned. For the anonymous official, the Anti-Corruption Bureau issued a statement saying that the Security Service did not provide any evidence indicating that the official passed information to the Russian spy agency. Regarding Mahamedrasolov, Ukrainian media quoted sources saying that the “evidence” provided by the Security Service showed that the so-called “cannabis business” was sold to Central Asian countries, not related to Russia.
Most analysts believe that the two so-called “traitors” caught by the Security Service are likely internal parasites within the Anti-Corruption Bureau. Previously, the Office of the Attorney General had accused another senior official of the National Anti-Corruption Bureau, Oleksandr Skomarov, of having connections with an ex-Russian politician. However, subsequent reports indicated that the case was largely unrelated to espionage: Skomarov was suspected of using his authority to assist some Ukrainian politicians and oligarchs in leaving the country, including those who were pro-Russia and anti-Russia.
It’s ironic that the deterioration between the Anti-Corruption Bureau and Zelensky’s team began with the exposure of their “common corruption” issues.
In August 2024, Jiozor Uglava, who had served as the first deputy director of the Anti-Corruption Bureau for nine years, was dismissed after being involved in a major leak case. It was discovered that he had close relations with a corrupt businessman and his political agent.
The individual in question is a former official of President Zelensky’s office, who was also exposed alongside Ugrava for their involvement in the case. This individual is Krystyna Zhukova, the Deputy Chief of Staff of Zelensky, and has been previously the Deputy Director of the Ukrainian Security Service (SBU). The communication between Zhukova and the political operative, as well as that involving Ugrava, are related to information about the potential removal of the head of the Anti-Corruption Bureau, Krysztof Krivonos.
Following the exposure of the Ugrava case, Krivonos initially faced criticism for his hesitation in response. However, he ultimately decided to replace Ugrava. At the time of his departure, Ugrava publicly stated that he had sufficient evidence to force Krivonos to resign. Subsequently, the investigation by the Anti-Corruption Bureau gradually shifted towards those close to Zelensky, with the Zelensky team using various means to restrict and obstruct the investigation.
Most analysts believe that the security service under Zelensky, which accused the Anti-Corruption Bureau of “Russian collusion,” marked a further escalation in the struggle between the two parties. The “Kyiv Independent” newspaper humorously suggested that searching for Russian spies within the security service might be more logical: former Director of the Ukrainian Security Service, Igor Yakun, was accused of treason for colluding with Russia, while another former Director, Serhii Bakanov, was dismissed for failing in his anti-intelligence work. Additionally, several senior officials within the security service have been exposed in recent years for collaborating with Russia.
However, after extensive investigations by the security service, the Anti-Corruption Bureau only identified two individuals who were more like corrupt individuals than “Russian collaborators.” This seems to indicate that the Anti-Corruption Bureau harbors corruption but does not actually engage in “Russian collusion.”
In this context, even Anastasia Radina, a member of the People’s Delegates Party and Chairman of the Anti-Corruption Committee of the Supreme Duma, expressed that it was difficult to understand why the president’s bill to strip the independence of anti-corruption agencies and its rationale, as well as its connection to “fighting so-called Russian spies,” is being presented.
“This is not a ‘black and white’ confrontation; it is a struggle in the ‘grey zone,'” commented Ukraine’s mainstream think tank, the Institute for Ukraine Studies, in its latest analysis report.
Since the struggle between anti-corruption agencies and Zelensky’s team is not “black or white,” why has the Ukrainian media been accusing Zelensky of “betraying everyone?” The key lies in Zelensky’s bill and actions, which undermine the “fruits of revolution” and diverge from his campaign promises.
The anti-corruption mechanism centered around the National Anti-Corruption Service was directly produced by the “Ukrainian Revolution” in 2014. The Anti-Corruption Service was established in 2015 and is specifically responsible for investigating high-ranking government officials suspected of corruption. Cases investigated are prosecuted by the Special Prosecutor Office established in 2015, and are tried by the Higher Anti-Corruption Court established in 2018. This system is independent from Ukraine’s old judicial system, led by an independent committee selected through an independent board of “international experts,” without presidential nomination or reporting to the President’s appointed Attorney General.
Zelensky, a political novice, campaigned for president in 2019 with supporting the anti-corruption mechanism as a core policy platform. At the beginning of his term, he called on Ukrainians to report officials to the Anti-Corruption Service via phone calls, describing it as “the largest mass challenge action.”
At the time, many Ukrainian media believed that Zelensky might be the first truly willing president since the country’s independence: his core political goal is to lead Ukraine into the European Union, and “fighting corruption” is a crucial condition for joining the EU.
Over the past decade, the EU and Western countries have invested billions of dollars in building institutions such as the Ukrainian National Anti-Corruption Authority. Zelenskyk understands that respecting anti-corruption mechanisms is essentially acknowledging the EU’s “political setup” for Ukraine.
However, after February 2022, the war changed the political landscape of Ukraine. The editorial in the Kyiv Independent at the onset of the war stated, “The clash between two worlds,两套价值观.” This statement was soon cited by the President of the European Commission, Ursula von der Leyen, and acknowledged by Zelenskyk. The issue lies in the fact that the Kyiv Independent believes that these values cannot be mere empty talk; yet, what Zelenskyk cares about more is the efficiency of command during wartime, as well as preventing allies from interfering in his political decisions.
With this in mind, before tensions with the National Anti-Corruption Authority escalated, Zelenskyk’s Chief of Staff Yermak had already conducted several rounds of internal clean-ups within the government. In February 2024, General-General of Ukrainian Armed Forces Zhaluyny resigned due to “excessive domestic reputation.” In May, the Deputy Minister in charge of reconstruction, Kubrakov, was dismissed.
Josh Rudolph, a senior researcher at the Marshall Foundation, pointed out that Kubrakov established a “transparent team” trusted by Western allies to secure reconstruction funds. “But Yermak believed that ‘the transparent team’ became a power center he could not fully control,” he said. After Kubrakov’s departure, the Western government proposed candidates to replace him, with the Foreign Minister, Kolesa, being the top choice. Four months later, Kolesa resigned, and Serbya took over as the Deputy Director of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
In July this year, just before cracking down on the anti-corruption mechanism, Zelenskyk conducted the largest cabinet reshuffle during wartime, with another former Deputy Director of the Presidential Office, Svirynko, becoming the new Prime Minister.
《经济学人》指出，本轮改组中，受到重用的人大多数“都是他（叶尔马克）的”。有乌克兰政府高级官员表示，总统办公室的人们已经“不再区分自己的利益和国家利益”，一种流行的说法是“我即乌克兰”。
随着权力不断集中，反腐败机制的独立存在，在乌克兰的战时政治生态中显得越来越突兀。特别是2024年8月的乌格拉瓦案之后，为了证明自己的独立性，洗刷“不敢触及总统办公室”的批评，反腐败局将目标指向泽连斯基的核心团队。
今年6月，乌克兰副总理兼民族团结部长切尔内绍夫被反腐败局宣布为一件非法侵占土地的“大规模腐败案”的嫌疑人。这位泽连斯基的亲信，由此成为泽连斯基执政以来遭到反腐败机制检控的最高级别官员。7月15日，反腐败局官员突击搜查了总统办公室前副主任罗斯季斯拉夫·舒尔马的公寓。
乌克兰媒体指出，不论这些行动是否真的指向调查叶尔马克本人，但“对其核心圈子的攻击会被视为对整个控制体系的威胁”。更让泽连斯基不满的是，基辅市长克利钦科、前总统波罗申科等领导的国内反对派，在这些争斗中站在反腐败机制一边。这并非因为他们不腐败，而是因为这可以提高他们在国内及西方盟友眼中的影响力。
“特别是在特朗普和泽连斯基发生矛盾后，几乎所有乌克兰反对派政客都希望成为泽连斯基的替代者。”
Ruslan Burtnik, the Director of the Institute for Ukraine’s Political Studies and former Vice-Chairman of the Public Committee of the Ministry of Defense in Ukraine, pointed out that under multiple factors, a view began to spread within the political sphere: “The existing anti-corruption system has become an instrument for domestic political opponents as well as Western influence on Ukraine.”
On July 25th, in Kyiv, Ukraine, citizens held a rally to protest against Zelensky’s government restricting the autonomy of Ukrainian anti-corruption agencies. Photo/IC
In fact, during the aforementioned personnel purges, Zelensky had already begun to tentatively target anti-corruption mechanisms. In June this year, he appointed Ruslan Klavchenko, a former military prosecutor, as the Attorney General. This individual is known for investigating the “Bucza incident” and accusing Russian forces of war crimes, but also for being repeatedly involved in corruption issues, leading international experts to reject his candidacy as Special Anti-Corruption Prosecutor at the time of his campaign.
After Klavchenko took office as the Attorney General, the department quickly accused the chairman of the most renowned Ukrainian non-governmental organization against corruption, “Anti-Corruption Action Center,” Vitalii Shabnum, of fraud and desertion, and conducted a surprise search of his posts stationed at the frontline between Russia and Ukraine. Shabnum claimed it was a “political retaliation” for exposing the corruption of Oleh Tartarov, Deputy Secretary of the Presidential Office.
Meanwhile, the Zelensky administration rejected the appointment of a new head of its internal anti-corruption agency, the “Economic Security Bureau.” An independent committee composed of international experts recommended Alexander Zvynski, a senior official of the National Anti-Corruption Agency, while the Presidential Office stated that Zvynski could not be appointed due to his father being a Russian citizen. It seems that this was a prelude to massively targeting anti-corruption mechanisms under the guise of “Russian collusion.”
The attacks on Shabnum and Zvynski have drawn strong criticism from Ukrainian media and Western governments. Zvynski has passed security checks multiple times and had no contact with his father before.
Ukrainian media have also mocked, stating that several senior officials and advisors in the Presidential Office are “relatives of Russian citizens.” The so-called “escaping military service” of Shabnum, who was involved in the defense of Kyiv and served on the front lines for a long time, is actually accused of “escaping military service” during his period of service at the Prevention of Corruption Bureau.
However, it is noteworthy that until Zelensky signed this bill, sparking massive protests domestically, these criticisms from European allies against Zelensky’s government remained undisclosed and did not affect European assistance to Ukraine, as “any public criticism would be exploited by Russia.” On the other hand, U.S. President Trump has shown little concern for Ukraine’s anti-corruption efforts and has significantly reduced the budget for political reform assistance to Ukraine.
A Ukrainian official revealed to the media that Zelensky’s response was: “So why not seize the opportunity to do what we want?”
Now, with Zelensky “going too far,” Western allies have finally issued an open warning. German Foreign Minister Wadpehl explicitly stated: “Limiting the independence of anti-corruption agencies will hinder Ukraine’s accession to the EU.” On July 25th, the European Commission announced that due to Ukraine’s failure to complete its promised reforms, the current loan assistance plan for Ukraine would temporarily be reduced by 1.5 billion euros.
In Ukraine, there are two different voices. The “European Truth Daily” argues that the West must start reflecting on its attitude towards open criticism of the Zelensky government, saying, “Lack of criticism will stifle Ukraine’s future.” Meanwhile, some Ukrainian media emphasize that the people taking to the streets and Zelensky’s swift withdrawal of legislative measures demonstrate that “Ukraine is different from Russia,” and “Western countries can continue to fight for such Ukraine.”
However, most analysts believe that given the ongoing fierce battle between Russia and Ukraine, this incident neither affects Zelensky’s governance stability nor changes the West’s consistent policy towards Ukraine.
80% of the public ranks corruption as Ukraine’s second most serious problem, “second only to war—but after all, worse than war”. Moreover, due to internal corruption issues, the National Anti-Corruption Agency has not gained public trust. A poll conducted in March 2025 showed that a high percentage of the public is untrusting of this independent anti-corruption mechanism, with an untrusted rate reaching up to 70%.
The organizer of the Kyiv protest activities, Koziatinski, expressed his position towards the media: “Comparing this protest to the revolution of 2014 is somewhat out of place. It is a peaceful protest, and no one here attempts to overthrow the government. What is fortunate is that the government seems to be listening.”
Published on August 4, 2025, in the 1198th issue of China Newsweek magazine.
Magazine title: Zelensky’s “Anti-Corruption Civil War”