Thousands march in Ukraine after Zelensky curbs top anti-corruption agencies
The controversial move allows a politically appointed prosecutor general to have more power over Ukraine's National Anti-Corruption Bureau (NABU) and the Specialized Anti-Corruption Prosecutor's Office (SAPO), threatening the independence of the two agencies tasked with weeding out decades of corruption in Kyiv.
Critics have now taken to the streets to protest the bill, which may even threaten the people's dream of joining the European Union.
6 Ukrainians came out en masse in Kyiv to protest the bill restricting anti-corruption institutions' independence.
Global Images Ukraine via Getty Images
6 Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky defended the law as a way to eliminate 'Russian influence' in the top anti-corruption agencies.
Getty Images
Zelensky, who has enjoyed popular support since Russia launched its full-scale invasion in 2022, is facing his first wartime protest at home after the bill was fast-tracked through parliament and presented before him on Tuesday night.
The president has defended the move as a necessary step to rid the two agencies of 'Russian influence' and to address why some cases have been stalled for years.
'There is no rational explanation why criminal proceedings worth billions have been 'hanging' for years,' Zelensky said in a statement. 'And there is no explanation why the Russians can still get the information they need.'
6 Critics say the bill undermines the agencies born from the 2014 Revolution of Dignity to tackle the corruption that's long plagued Kyiv.
Global Images Ukraine via Getty Images
6 The demonstrations are the first of their kind since Ukraine was attacked by Russia in 2022.
Global Images Ukraine via Getty Images
The approval of the law came following federal raids against NABU employees and an investigation into SAPO's handling of state secrets, with two people arrested on Monday over 'suspicion of working for Russian special services.'
Opponents, however, slammed the bill's passage as a way of putting political pressure on what should be independent agencies that targeted some of Zelensky's close allies, including former Deputy Prime Minister Oleksiy Chernyshov.
Critics have previously accused Zelensky of refusing to face the alleged corruption going on inside his inner circle, which opponents say has hurt Kyiv's ability to fight back against the Russian invasion.
6 A protester flashes the Ukrainian Constitution during the protest.
Global Images Ukraine via Getty Images
The move also earned backlash from Marta Kos, the EU's commissioner for enlargement, who said she was 'seriously concerned' and warned that restricting the anti-corruption agencies would only hurt Ukraine's chances of joining the bloc.
'The dismantling of key safeguards protecting NABU's independence is a serious step back,' she wrote on X.
'Independent bodies like NABU & SAPO, are essential for [Ukraine]'s EU path. Rule of Law remains in the very center of EU accession negotiations,' she added.
6 The people are demanding that Ukraine's National Anti-Corruption Bureau and the Specialized Anti-Corruption Prosecutor's Office remain independent.
Global Images Ukraine via Getty Images
Ukraine's history with widespread corruption has been one of the reasons why the country has not been accepted into the EU and NATO.
NABU and SAPO were established following Ukraine's Revolution of Dignity in 2014, which saw leaders promise the public to weed out corruption in Kyiv after ousting pro-Russian President Viktor Yanukovych.
NABU is in charge of investigating corruption allegations, with SAPO tasked with prosecuting the cases once enough evidence is gathered.
Zelensky said his administration will be holding a meeting next week to form an action plan on how the two agencies will be moving forward, insisting that they will be allowed to act in a method that ensures 'justice and the effectiveness.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Boston Globe
18 minutes ago
- Boston Globe
Trump administration revokes security clearances of 37 current and former government officials
Many of the officials who were targeted left the government years ago after serving in both senior national security positions and lower-profile roles far from the public eye. Some worked on matters that have long infuriated Trump, like the intelligence community assessment that Russia interfered in the 2016 presidential election on his behalf. And several signaled their concerns about Trump by signing a critical letter in 2019 that was highlighted on social media last month by right-wing provocateur and close Trump ally Laura Loomer. Get Starting Point A guide through the most important stories of the morning, delivered Monday through Friday. Enter Email Sign Up The action is part of a broader Trump administration campaign to wield the levers of government against perceived adversaries, and it reflects the president's continued distrust of career intelligence officials he has long seen as working against his interests. Advertisement The revocation of clearances has emerged as a go-to tactic for the administration, a strategy that critics say risks chilling dissenting voices from a national security community accustomed to drawing on a range of viewpoints before formulating an assessment. 'These are unlawful and unconstitutional decisions that deviate from well-settled, decades-old laws and policies that sought to protect against just this type of action,' Mark Zaid, a national security lawyer whose own clearance was revoked by the Trump administration, said in a statement. Advertisement He called it hypocritical for the administration to 'claim these individuals politicized or weaponized intelligence.' Gabbard on Tuesday defended the move, which she said had been directed by Trump. 'Being entrusted with a security clearance is a privilege, not a right,' she wrote on X. 'Those in the Intelligence Community who betray their oath to the Constitution and put their own interests ahead of the American people have broken the sacred trust they promised to uphold.' The security clearance suspension comes amid a broader effort by Gabbard and other Trump administration officials to revisit the intelligence community's assessment on Russian election interference, including by declassifying a series of years-old documents meant to cast doubt on the legitimacy of its findings. Multiple government investigations have reached the same conclusion that Russia interfered in the 2016 election in sweeping fashion, including through a hack-and-leak operation of Democratic emails and a social media campaign aimed at sowing discord and swaying public opinion. But Trump has long resisted the assessment that Russian President Vladimir Putin interfered in his favor, and his Justice Department has authorized a grand jury investigation that could bring fresh scrutiny to Obama-era officials. Security clearances are important not only for current government workers but also former ones whose private-sector jobs require them to retain access to sensitive information. Stripping clearances from such employees could make it hard for them to do their jobs. On his first day of office, Trump said he would revoke the security clearances of the more than four dozen former intelligence officials who signed a 2020 letter saying that the Hunter Biden laptop saga bore the hallmarks of a 'Russian information operation.' Advertisement He's also revoked the clearances of former President Joe Biden and former Vice President Kamala Harris, and he attempted to do the same for lawyers at a spate of prominent law firms but was rebuffed by federal judges. Some of those who were targeted in the latest action were part of Biden's national security team. Many only learned of the Gabbard action from news reports Tuesday, said two former government officials who were on the list. Both spoke on the condition of anonymity as they ponder whether to take legal action.
Yahoo
19 minutes ago
- Yahoo
India and China: US Tariffs Turn Rivals Toward Friendship in Major Geopolitical Shift
Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi arrived in New Delhi on Monday for a two-day visit viewed by many as the first indication of a thaw in relations between two rivals. The last such meeting took place in 2020 after a border clash heightened tensions between China and India, which have long been locked in a state of controlled hostility. More from Sourcing Journal No Hint of a Slowdown at Arc'teryx Parent Amer Sports Despite Tariff Impacts India Suspends Duties on Raw Cotton Imports, Benefitting US Exporters EU Tech Regulation Could Be Holding Up Final Trade Agreement With U.S. Moving forward in the wake of extraordinarily high U.S. tariffs of 50 percent on India, the two largest economies in Asia are looking for synergy and a positive outlook to navigate the turbulence in global trade. Neither side is pretending past tensions are moot, even though it is clear that geopolitics in South Asia stands at an important crossroads. After their meeting on Monday, India's foreign minister S. Jaishankar said it was time to 'move ahead from a difficult period in our ties,' while Wang Yi indicated it was time to 'move beyond being adversaries, to being partners.' Both sides agreed that 'stability had now been restored at the borders,' although analysts warned that years of mistrust could not 'so easily be swept aside by business interests.' Wang Yi's meeting on Tuesday with Prime Minister Narendra Modi at his official residence further underlined the effort. After the meeting, Modi tweeted: 'Glad to meet foreign minister Wang Yi. Stable, predictable, constructive ties between India and China will contribute significantly to regional as well as global peace and prosperity.' He added, 'I look forward to our next meeting in Tianjin on the sidelines of the SCO Summit,' referring to his accepted visit to the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation summit on Aug. 31 and Sept. 1. Pushed further together by what is being seen as a rupture in friendship with President Donald Trump through the punishing 50 percent tariff on Indian goods (the highest in the region), Modi is recalibrating India's strategy. The tariff began with a 25 percent duty for India, compared to 20 percent for Bangladesh, Vietnam and Sri Lanka, along with 19 percent for Pakistan, Cambodia and Indonesia. The additional 25 percent was slapped on India for its imports of Russian crude oil, bringing the total to 50 percent are set to take effect on Aug. 27. India has held firm in its objections to the tariffs, with the Ministry of External Affairs calling the targeting of India 'unjustified and unreasonable.' The overtures to China are viewed as a part of the fallout between the U.S. and India. Premal Udani, former chairman of the Apparel Export Promotion Council (AEPC) and managing director of Kaytee Corp Pvt Ltd, described the situation as an 'existential crisis for the apparel and textile industry.' He told Sourcing Journal that many U.S. buyers had paused shipments and put new orders on hold. 'The industry cannot take this kind of impact. Current effective duties are already at around 40 percent and will climb to 65 percent next week,' he said. Hopes that a U.S. delegation visit this week might advance bilateral trade talks appear dim, with reports suggesting the visit has been put on hold. 'There were two things happening at the same time. There was talk of a Bilateral Trade Agreement (BTA), and the delegation was coming for that—it wasn't to negotiate on tariffs. Realistically, none of us expected much headway in the BTA until these contentious issues were resolved. We were not holding our breath,' Udani explained. According to a recent report by the Indian Council for Research on International Economic Relations (ICRIER), nearly 70 percent of Indian exports to the U.S. will face 50 percent tariffs under the new tariff regime. 'While this represents just 1.56 percent of the gross domestic product (GDP) and 7.38 percent of total exports—far from catastrophic for a $3.9 trillion economy—the impact is concentrated in labor-intensive and high-value sectors such as textiles, apparel, gems, jewelry, auto parts, and agricultural products like shrimp. These sectors not only anchor India's merchandise exports to the U.S. but also directly affect employment and the livelihoods of millions. The U.S. alone accounted for approximately 29 percent of India's textile and apparel exports last financial year, valued at about $10.3 billion,' the report noted. Manufacturers have been faced with some dire conversations with the brands and retailers these past weeks. In Tirupur, which accounts for 68 percent of India's knitwear exports, manufacturers have paused shipments and voiced deep uncertainty. U.S. buyers account for nearly one-quarter of exports from Tirupur, and Tamil Nadu officials warned that the entire state—which sends 31 percent of its $52.18 billion exports to the U.S.—faces urgent threats to livelihoods. The Tirupur Exporters and Manufacturers Association (TEAMA) said that 3 million jobs and 20,000 factories are 'at immediate risk' due to the extra 25 percent to 50 percent tariff. The association has appealed to Prime Minister Modi for relief measures, including high-level diplomatic talks, loan-repayment moratoriums, collateral-free working capital loans, and the temporary suspension of the goods and service tax, income tax and other levies for affected exporters. Sanjay Jain, chair of the Indian Chamber of Commerce National Textiles Committee and managing director of TT Ltd, echoed the depth of the crisis throughout the textile and apparel sectors. 'It's a bad situation—buyers are putting orders on hold, and even ready goods are being asked not to dispatch. Exporters are having to give steep discounts just to move shipments or secure new orders. It's a total loss for exporters,' he said. Jain urged urgent action, warning that summer orders were already being placed and India could not afford to lose market share to other countries. 'The U.S. is the single largest buyer of home textiles and apparel in the world—we cannot ignore it. Now it is about the survival of the small and medium companies and skilled labor. The government must act boldly and support the industry in finding new pastures.' His suggestions included quickly reducing raw material costs, removing import duties on cotton and textile raw materials, and offering a 10 percent U.S.-focused incentive for products facing the 50 percent tariff. Other manufacturers told Sourcing Journal that a 'comparative paralysis has set in.' 'While there's no point in hand-wringing over the so-called friendship with the U.S. and casting blame, all eyes are on our government to see how they protect this badly hit, labor-intensive industry. It's hard to see how the government can cover the 30 percent tariff gap monetarily. We need a multi-pronged strategy,' said a Tirupur based manufacturer, requesting anonymity. Prime Minister Modi's Independence Day speech on Aug. 15, in which he promised relief for the industry through tax reforms before the festival of Diwali in November, signals movement toward India holding its own. Additionally, on Monday, the Finance Ministry announced the elimination of the 11 percent duty on cotton imports until Sept. 30, a step welcomed by manufacturers and a move that also eases access for U.S. cotton into India. Hansa Sharma, founder of the eco-friendly sustainable fashion brand Hansa, described how the situation was transforming the entire supply chain in a post: 'This is a reminder that trade policies don't just change numbers on a balance sheet—they reshape entire supply chains. As a manufacturer, we see first-hand how tariffs tilt the playing field, making adaptability and efficiency more critical than ever. While challenges are real, they also push us to rethink sourcing, diversify markets, and lean into innovation. In the end, resilience becomes the true currency of global trade.' A northern India manufacturer, described it as a 'huge ripple effect.' 'In India it is creating a de facto embargo for exports to the U.S., but the impact is much bigger than that. The tariffs are not only straining local supply chains but also reshaping the geopolitics of sourcing in South Asia,' he said, adding that manufacturers were already considering building factories in other countries, although that would result in a loss of employment in India. Despite the palpable tension, not all are swamped in gloom. Many manufacturers endorsed Jaishankar's point to Wang Yi that 'differences must not become disputes, nor competition conflict,' and that the same point could well be applied to the business of sourcing. While the tentative Chinese connections were not immediately seen as bridges to building business, Udani said that they were overall a 'very positive step forward.' 'They need our raw materials and we need a lot of their goods as well. If it works out it's a win-win situation for 25 percent of humanity,' he said. As for the upcoming deadline for additional U.S. tariffs that is causing disruptions across the supply chain, it's still being seen as a possible window to change. 'We're still cautiously optimistic,' said Udani. 'As Russia-U.S. talks are on, and Ukraine-U.S. talks are on, this issue of tariffs for crude oil imports from Russia may well be swept aside for India.' He pointed to China's last-minute extension on tariffs as an encouraging precedent, while acknowledging that 'given the impulsive and uncertain way tariffs are being distributed, it could quite go the opposite way, too.' 'So, Aug. 27 is the date to watch,' he said, referring to the deadline for the second 25 percent in tariff measures to take effect. His optimism went further: 'I wish other countries well, but in the end, India has great strength in its verticality in the sector. It's only a matter of time, and hopefully we will get a chance to get there.' Solve the daily Crossword
Yahoo
40 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Opinion - The Donbas is a poisoned chalice that neither Russia nor Ukraine should want
Whichever side in the Russo-Ukrainian War wins the Donbas loses the war. That is the savage and largely unacknowledged irony at the core of the struggle over the Donbas — a territory that has recently come to occupy center stage in President Trump's post-summit thinking about how to end the war. Inasmuch as Russia has occupied most of the industrial basin known as the Donbas since its first invasion of Ukraine in 2014 — and is highly unlikely to be driven from that territory anytime soon — Russia has already lost the war, regardless of how long it continues and whether or not a U.S.-brokered ceasefire or peace becomes a reality. The Donbas was the industrial powerhouse of the Soviet Union for decades, but the region was already going into decline by the 1970s and 1980s. When Ukraine became independent in 1991, it inherited what had largely become a value-destroying territory. The Donbas fed the corrupt appetites of local politicians, oligarchs and organized crime. Its working-class residents claimed to have an exalted status belied by a wretched reality. As the economist Anders Aslund put it in 2015, 'The Donbas is a rust belt of old mines, steel mills and chemical factories. Almost all the coal mines and chemical factories are inactive … The rebels have blown up railway bridges, complicating bulk transportation.' In 2016, Aslund estimated that it would cost some $20 billion to revive the Donbas. By 2025, the estimated cost of Ukraine's reconstruction had zoomed upward to $524 billion, a 26-fold increase. Much of that money would need to go to the Donbas, where most of the heaviest fighting has taken place. A reasonable guesstimate of how much it would cost to rebuild just the Donbas today is $200 billion — nearly one-tenth of Russia's reported annual GDP and slightly more than Ukraine's. If the fighting continues indefinitely, that sum will surely double or even triple. Neither Ukraine nor Russia has that kind of cash. It is conceivable that Vladimir Putin's fascist regime could squeeze some money out of its subjects, but Ukraine's democracy could not. Fixing the Donbas would bankrupt either state, especially as the international community and business are unlikely to offer much in the way of assistance. But the burden of owning the Donbas isn't just financial. It is also demographic, environmental and political. According to Aslund, writing in 2016, 'Ukraine claims 1.2 million internally displaced persons, while Russia reports half a million refugees from the Donbas, and the United Nations estimates that some 100,000 have fled elsewhere. If these numbers are reasonably correct, 1.8 million have fled and 1.5 million remain. Apart from some 45,000 fighters, the remaining population largely consists of pensioners and the destitute.' This was the Donbas 10 years ago. We don't know how many people fled after the full-scale Russian invasion of 2022, but the numbers must be substantial. In addition, the armed militias that served in the phony Luhansk and Donetsk 'People's Republics' were thrown at the front and suffered enormous losses. Whatever its exact size, the Donbas's overwhelmingly aged and impoverished population can hardly be the basis of an economic boom. And how many refugees will return? How many people will move there from other parts of Ukraine or Russia if and when peace is attained? The questions are largely rhetorical, especially as the Donbas is an environmental hell hole. According to the Conflict and Environment Observatory, the fighting since 2014 has 'created a risk of environmental emergencies and will leave a lasting legacy of groundwater contamination from flooded coal mines.' Moreover, 'following Russia's invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, hundreds of environmentally sensitive sites have been caught up in the conflict.' The Donbas will also become the site of endless political instability. If Ukraine inherits the territory, pro-Russian elements, in cahoots with the Russian security services, are sure to stage provocations, assassinate local officials, sabotage plants and so on. If Russia keeps the Donbas, Ukraine is sure to engage in equally subversive activities. How fair and free elections could take place under such conditions is anybody's guess. Despite these similarities, there is one fundamental difference. Putin's fascist regime will thrive on repression and violence; Ukraine's democracy won't. Indeed, while Putin can crush whatever opposition he encounters, Ukraine will have to mollify and integrate it — a test it failed before 2014 and one that it is unlikely to pass after years of war. Will failing this test make Ukraine more or less likely to overcome existing hurdles and join the European Union and NATO? Again, the question is rhetorical. The Donbas's transformation into a permanent source of instability will have at least two negative consequences for Putin. It will divert Russia's coercive resources from other, equally unstable parts of the Russian Federation. It will also encourage some non-Russian regions — the north Caucasus comes immediately to mind — to press for greater autonomy and less Kremlin oversight. France and the German states fought for centuries over Alsace-Lorraine and the Rhineland. That made some sense, since both regions were economically, politically and socially developed. Not so the Donbas. It is a black hole and will remain so for years to come. For better or for worse, neither Ukraine nor Russia can just turn their backs on the territory without violating their constitutions and courting mass demonstrations. Of course, as far as Putin is concerned, a constitution is just a piece of paper. Even so, to abandon the Donbas would be to admit defeat and experience political suicide. Ditto for Ukraine and its president, Volodymyr Zelensky. If winning means losing, does losing mean winning? Regardless of how they answer that question and what the terms of a possible peace deal might be, Ukrainians may take some consolation from the fact that, thanks to Putin's heady territorial ambitions, Russia will be stuck with that black hole for years to come. Indeed, Russia itself will progressively come to resemble the Donbas. That could be Ukraine's greatest victory. Alexander J. Motyl is a professor of political science at Rutgers University-Newark. A specialist on Ukraine, Russia and the USSR, and on nationalism, revolutions, empires and theory, he is the author of 10 books of nonfiction, as well as 'Imperial Ends: The Decay, Collapse, and Revival of Empires' and 'Why Empires Reemerge: Imperial Collapse and Imperial Revival in Comparative Perspective.' Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed. Solve the daily Crossword
