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 President Volodymyr Zelensky’s office. The crowd did not demand Zelensky’s 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 Zelensky’s action was highly anticipated. As anti-corruption investigations were targeting core members of the presidential office, Zelensky took action by amending the law, stripping 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 placing them entirely under the leadership of the Attorney General’s Office. Ruslan Klavchenko, who had just taken office a month earlier and was Zelensky’s loyal supporter, was also known for his involvement in corruption scandals and being judged as “unfit” for the role of an anti-corruption prosecutor.
On July 21st, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky met with government officials, members of the National Security and Defense Council, and representatives of the Armed Forces in Kyiv. Photo/Visual China
Some Ukrainian media described Zelensky’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 Commissioner for Enlargement, Kos, made a special call to the top officials of the Zelensky administration at the last minute, warning them, but this was ignored by Zelensky, who signed the bill amidst protests on the night of July 22nd.
The next day, the demonstration spread to several major cities, evolving into the largest domestic protest in Ukraine since 2022.
On the evening, Tomas Istomińa, Deputy Editor of Ukraine’s Truth Daily, returned to the Ivan Franko Theatre and found that the protest crowd was “triple” the number compared to 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, promising to introduce a new one to ensure the independence of anti-corruption agencies. The scale of protests then decreased, essentially ending by the 26th. The Ukrainian Supreme Council, which has been on summer recess, will urgently convene for a vote on the new bill on July 31.
The Kyiv Post pointed out that regardless of the content of the new bill, the damage caused by this turmoil is already done. “Restoring the trust of Ukrainian citizens, soldiers, and Western partners is very difficult.”
On July 22nd and 24th, 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 given 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 Chermaynenk, Chief Anti-Corruption Prosecutor, while they were on a business trip in the UK. Upon learning about the news, Kryvonenko and Chermaynenk hurried back to Ukraine. The National Anti-Corruption Agency immediately pointed out that the security service’s search was without a search warrant. During the operation, the security personnel used violence against officials of the Anti-Corruption Agency and began to inspect and examine 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 have connections 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 marijuana” 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 a Russian spy agency.
However, these allegations faced widespread skepticism. Regarding the anonymous official, the Anti-Corruption Bureau issued a statement saying that the Security Service did not provide any evidence indicating that the official had transmitted information to the Russian spy agency. For Mahamedrasolov, Ukrainian media quoted sources familiar with the matter, stating that the “evidence” provided by the Security Service showed that the so-called “marijuana business” was sold to Central Asian countries, not connected to Russia.
Most analysts believe that the two so-called “traitors” captured 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 parliamentarian. However, subsequent reports suggested 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 Gulgav, 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 investigation. It was discovered that he had close ties 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, who has been described as Zelensky’s “closest assistant.”
In August 2024, Jizyo Ugrava, the first deputy director of Ukraine’s Anti-Corruption Service, was dismissed from her position.
Zhukova, both as the Office Director of Yermak and as the former Deputy Director of the Security Service, was involved in communications with political brokers that were revealed to involve information about possible dismissal of the Anti-Corruption Service Director, Krysztof Krivonos.
Following the exposure of Ugrava’s 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 Anti-Corruption Service’s investigations gradually targeted Zelensky’s “close associates,” while Zelensky’s team attempted various means to limit and obstruct the investigation.
Most analysts believe that the security service’s attempt to blame “Russian collusion” on the Anti-Corruption Service represents 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 Security Service, Igor Yakmenko, was accused of treason for “collusion with Russia,” another former Director, Sergei Bakanov, was dismissed for failing in his anti-intelligence work, and 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, only two individuals were identified as “Russian collaborators” by the Anti-Corruption Service. This seems to indicate that the Anti-Corruption Service harbors corruption but does not engage in “collusion with Russia.”
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 difficulty in understanding the president’s bill to strip the independence of anti-corruption agencies and its relevance to “fighting so-called Russian spies.”
“This is not a ‘black and white’ confrontation; it is a struggle in the ‘gray zone,'” commented Ukraine’s mainstream think tank, the Institute for Ukraine Studies, in its latest analysis report.
Given that 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 crux 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 tasked with investigating high-ranking government officials suspected of corruption. Cases investigated are prosecuted by the Special Anti-Corruption Prosecutor Office established in 2015, and are tried by the Higher Anti-Corruption Court established in 2018. This system operates independently of Ukraine’s old judicial system, with leadership selected by independent committees composed of “international experts,” without presidential nomination or reporting to the President’s appointed Attorney General.
Zelensky, a political novice, campaigned for president in 2019, prioritizing support for the anti-corruption mechanism as a core policy. Upon taking office, he called on Ukrainians to report officials to the Anti-Corruption Service via phone, 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 independence to change the corrupt situation: his core political goal was to lead Ukraine into the European Union, and “fighting corruption” was a crucial condition for joining the EU.
Over the past decade, the European Union and Western countries have invested billions of dollars in building institutions such as the Ukrainian National Anti-Corruption Agency. Zelenskyk understood that respecting anti-corruption mechanisms was actually 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 is between two worlds, with两套 values.” This statement quickly found its way into the mouth of Ursula von der Leyen, the President of the European Commission, who also acknowledged it by Zelenskyk. The issue lies in the fact that the Kyiv Independent believes that these values cannot be empty talk; but for Zelenskyk, what matters 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 Agency escalated, Zelenskyk’s Chief of Staff Yermak had already conducted several rounds of internal cleansing within the government. In February 2024, General-General of Ukrainian Armed Forces Zhaluńskii resigned due to “excessive domestic reputation.” In May, the Deputy Prime Minister in charge of reconstruction, Kulibakov, was dismissed.
Josh Rudolph, a senior fellow at the Marshall Foundation, pointed out that Kulibakov 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 Kulibakov’s departure, the Western governments proposed candidates to replace him, with the Foreign Minister, Kolesnikov, being the top choice. Four months later, Kolesnikov resigned, and Serhiy Sumyatyn, former Deputy Director of the Presidential Office, took over the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
In July this year, just before cracking down on the anti-corruption mechanism, Zelenskyk made the largest cabinet reshuffle during wartime, with another former Deputy Director of the Presidential Office, Sviridenko, 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 Ukraine’s Ministry of Defense, pointed out that under multiple factors, a view began to spread in the political arena: “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 Zelenskyy’s government’s restrictions on the autonomy of Ukraine’s anti-corruption agencies. Photo/IC
In fact, during the aforementioned personnel purges, Zelenskyy had already begun to tentatively target anti-corruption mechanisms. In June this year, he appointed Ruslan Kravchenko, a former military prosecutor, as the Attorney General. The 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 election.
After Kravchenko took office as the Attorney General, the department quickly accused the chairman of Ukraine’s most renowned anti-corruption NGO, “Anti-Corruption Action Center,” Vitalii Shablin of fraud and desertion, and conducted a surprise search of Shablin’s posts stationed at the frontline between Russia and Ukraine. Shablin claimed it was a “political retaliation” for exposing the corruption issues of Oleg Tartarov, Deputy Director of the Presidential Office.
Meanwhile, the Zelenskyy government 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 Zhwinski, a senior official of the National Anti-Corruption Agency, while the Presidential Office stated that Zhwinski 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 Shablin and Zhwinski have drawn strong criticism from Ukrainian media and Western governments. Zhwinski has passed security checks multiple times and has no contact with his father.
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’s worth noting 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 aid 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 significantly reduced his budget for political reform assistance to Ukraine.
A Ukrainian official revealed to the media that Zelensky’s response was, “So why not seize the moment to do what we want?”
Now, with Zelensky “going too far,” Western allies have finally issued an open warning. German Foreign Minister Wadpeul 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” claims that the West must start reflecting on its attitude towards open criticism of the Zelensky administration, “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 “the West can continue to fight for such a 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 in March 2025 showed that a high rate of distrust towards this independent anti-corruption mechanism reached 70%.
The organizer of the Kyiv protest activities, Koziatinski, expressed his position to the media: “Comparing this protest with the revolution of 2014 is somewhat out of place. It was a peaceful protest, and no one here tried to overthrow the government. What’s 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”