Putin Weaponizes Ukrainian Protests in Bid To Undermine Zelensky
Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content.
The Kremlin is exploiting discontent in Ukraine at its parliament's move to put anti-corruption watchdogs under the control of the prosecutor general, the Institute for the Study of War has said.
The think tank's assessment follows protests sparked by concerns that Ukraine's National Anti-Corruption Bureau (NABU) and Special Anti-Corruption Prosecutor's Office (SAPO) would no longer be able to operate independently to fight graft.
Ukrainian analysts have told Newsweek the move undoes a decade of democratic progress, although its president Volodymyr Zelensky said Thursday he backed a new draft law aimed at strengthening the independence the anti-corruption institutions.
Newsweek has contacted the Ukrainian president's office and the Kremlin for comment.
Ukrainians protest against a new bill curtailing anti-corruption agencies on July 23, 2025 in Kyiv, Ukraine.
Ukrainians protest against a new bill curtailing anti-corruption agencies on July 23, 2025 in Kyiv, Ukraine.Why It Matters
Protests erupted nationwide after Zelensky signed a bill Tuesday that critics condemned as destroying the independence of NABU and SAPO, in a move the Ukrainian president said aimed to curtail Russian influence.
But critics say the law deprives anti-corruption agencies of their independence, and does nothing to target Russian agents in or outside the agencies. The Kremlin can capitalize on this discontent inside Ukraine to cast aspersions on the government in Kyiv it wants to oust.
What To Know
On Tuesday, Zelensky signed a law passed by the Ukrainian Verkhovna Rada (parliament) which subordinated Ukraine's two main anti-corruption agencies to the Ukrainian Prosecutor General.
It came a day after a raid by the Ukrainian Security Service (SBU) and Ukrainian Prosecutor General's Office on NABU offices during a probe into employees allegedly suspected of collaborating with Moscow.
Zelensky said the new law ensured Ukraine's anti-corruption bodies can operate without Russian influence. But protests took place across the country over fears that the bodies would not be able to operate independently.
Kremlin officials and propagandists have pounced on the protests to portray the Ukrainian government as corrupt and illegitimate and discourage continued Western support for Ukraine, the ISW said.
Although they are not anti-war demonstrations, Russian MPs and pro-Kremlin mouthpieces claimed that Ukrainians protesting the law were opposing the continuation of the war, the government in Kyiv and Zelensky himself.
The think tank also said that the Kremlin will likely to use the protests to try to divide Ukraine from its allies with the hope of weakening its military.
In comments to Newsweek, Elena Davlikanova, fellow at the Center for European Policy Analysis (CEPA) said the law was a serious blow to Ukraine's anti-corruption course.
Russian President Vladimir Putin at the Marnitogorsk Iron and Steel Works MMK, July 16, 2025, in Magnitogorsk, Russia.
Russian President Vladimir Putin at the Marnitogorsk Iron and Steel Works MMK, July 16, 2025, in Magnitogorsk, Russia.
Getty Images
Uliana Movchan from the same think tank, said the law risks eroding transparency, reducing accountability, and enabling political interference in corruption investigations.
This would remove critical oversight mechanisms, allowing the executive—particularly the President—to exert greater control over law enforcement and judicial processes leading to public officials facing fewer consequences for misconduct, Movchan added.
Meanwhile, Elina Beketova, also from CEPA said that Ukraine had returned to the pre-Maidan era, where "justice" and "anti-corruption" were just empty words, and prosecutors served political interests.
What People Are Saying
Institute for the Study of War (ISW): "Russia is weaponizing ongoing domestic protests in Ukraine to intensify rhetoric designed to undermine Ukraine's legitimacy and discourage Western support."
Elina Beketova, fellow, Democratic Resilience, Center for European Policy Analysis: "This move undoes over a decade of progress in Ukraine.
She added: "The principles and freedoms people fought for during and after the Revolution of Dignity—transparent rules and accountability—are being erased."
Ukraine's president Volodymyr Zelensky submitted a new bill Thursday saying: "The most important thing is real tools, no Russian connections, and the independence of NABU and SAPO."
What Happens Next
Zelensky announced Thursday he had approved the text of a new draft law to strengthen the rule of law and the independence of Ukraine's anti-corruption institutions, without providing further details.
But anti-corruption activists say it is to early to say that the legislation will actually restore the independence of the NABU and SAPO, the Kyiv Independent reported.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
San Francisco Chronicle
10 minutes ago
- San Francisco Chronicle
Stanford Daily sues Trump administration over deportation threats
Stanford's student newspaper sued the Trump administration on Wednesday for threatening to deport any noncitizen who criticizes Israel or U.S. foreign policy, saying the government is violating freedom of speech and intimidating campus journalists into censoring their own articles. 'In the United States of America, no one should fear a midnight knock on the door for voicing the wrong opinion,' lawyers for the Stanford Daily, the university's independent 133-year-old publication, wrote in a lawsuit filed in federal court in San Jose. They said staff writers holding legal U.S. visas 'are declining assignments related to the conflict in the Middle East, worried that even reporting on the conflict will endanger their immigration status.' One editor resigned from the newspaper, another editor and present and former reporters have asked to have their articles removed from the website and 'international students have also largely stopped talking to Stanford Daily journalists,' the suit said. It was filed a day after Stanford officials announced that they might lay off 363 non-teaching employees this fall because of a $750 million tax increase imposed by President Donald Trump's budget bill. The lawsuit is among multiple legal challenges to the Trump administration's attacks on pro-Palestinian protesters and their universities. A central issue, cited by the newspaper's lawyers, is Secretary of State Marco Rubio's claim that he can order deportation of any noncitizen for statements he considers 'anti-American' or 'anti-Israel.' Rubio cited a provision of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 that allows the secretary of state to revoke a noncitizen's legal status if the secretary decides the person's 'beliefs, statements or associations … compromise a compelling United States foreign policy interest.' He invoked that provision against Mahmoud Khalil, a legal U.S. resident and pro-Palestinian activist at Columbia University who was arrested in March and held in a Louisiana jail for 104 days before a federal judge ordered his release. Other campus activists have also been jailed, and Stanford reported that the visas of six students were revoked less than two weeks after Rubio's announcement in March. The lawsuit said Rubio's claim that a student's criticism of Israel harms a 'compelling United States foreign policy interest' is questionable — but regardless, his actions violate the Constitution's First Amendment, which protects noncitizens under a 1945 Supreme Court ruling. 'The First Amendment cements America's promise that the government may not subject a speaker to disfavored treatment because those in power do not like his or her message,' wrote the attorneys, Marc Van Der Hout of San Francisco and Conor Fitzpatrick of the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression. They asked a federal judge for an injunction that would halt the threats of deportation against critics of Israel or U.S. foreign policy. Tricia McLaughlin, spokesperson for the Department of Homeland Security in the Trump administration, called the suit 'baseless.' 'DHS takes its role in removing threats to the public and our communities seriously, and the idea that enforcing federal law in that regard constitutes some kind of prior restraint on speech is laughable,' McLaughlin said in a statement. She said the United States has 'no room' for 'the rest of the world's terrorist sympathizers.'
USA Today
10 minutes ago
- USA Today
Elina Svitolina ripped bettors for crossing line after Naomi Osaka loss
In case it wasn't already clear, bets you make on any sporting event are your responsibility and YOUR responsibility alone. An athlete is not obligated to follow through and will not tailor their performance based on whatever transaction a complete stranger agreed to behind the scenes (not to mention the ethical and legal concerns). And the moment you start venting out your frustrations to an athlete who "let you down," you've lost the plot entirely. That seems to be what's happened with Elina Svitolina. After losing to Naomi Osaka in the National Bank Open quarterfinals on Tuesday, the No. 13-ranked tennis player in the world took to her Instagram story to share screenshots of a handful of "shameful" messages from bettors filled with vitriol and anger over her failure at the hands of Osaka. Svitolina included messages that invoked death threats. Some mocked Svitolina's Ukrainian heritage amid the country's ongoing war with Russia. Others made racist comments about her husband, Gaël Monfils, a Black fellow professional tennis player. For obvious sensitivity reasons, I will not link out any of the images here. You can find them in Svitolina's story if you're so inclined. To say the least, this is not OK. Not at all. 'To all the bettors: I'm a mom before I'm an athlete,' Svitolina wrote in her Instagram story. 'The way you talk to women – to mothers – is SHAMEFUL. If your moms saw your messages, they'd be disgusted.' Friends, please remember what I'm about to say. Just because you lost a bet over a sports outcome does not mean you get to start harassing the person you think cost you money. Athletes are still, and stay with me here, human beings who deserve common decency like any of us. They're not props. The only person who costs you money in these kinds of situations is you. The betting buck starts and stops with you. Always.
New York Post
10 minutes ago
- New York Post
Russia secondary sanctions still on track for Friday after Putin, Witkoff meeting
WASHINGTON — US sanctions targeting nations that buy Russian oil will kick in on Friday after Vladimir Putin refused to end his invasion of Ukraine by President Trump's deadline, a senior White House official said following direct talks between Washington and Moscow on Wednesday. Following a three-hour meeting between Putin and Trump special envoy Steve Witkoff, the Kremlin said it wanted to continue talking — which Trump has publicly suspected of being a strategy to 'tap along' his administration. 'The Russians are eager to continue engaging with the United States,' the US official said in a statement, adding: 'The secondary sanctions are still expected to be implemented on Friday.' Advertisement US sanctions targeting nations that buy Russian oil will kick in on Friday after Vladimir Putin refused to end his invasion of Ukraine by President Trump's deadline, following direct talks between Washington and Moscow on Wednesday. GAVRIIL GRIGOROV/SPUTNIK/KREMLIN POOL/EPA/Shutterstock The official also said Witkoff's discussion with Putin 'went well.' Wednesday marked the first time the parties had met for such talks since April, when it became evident little progress was being made toward an end to Europe's bloodiest conflict since World War II.
