‘Playing with fire': Western media reacts to Zelensky's crackdown on anti-corruption bureau
Zelensky signed legislative amendments on the subordination of the National Anti-Corruption Bureau of Ukraine (NABU) and the office of the special anti-corruption prosecutor hours after they were rushed through parliament. The changes were enacted despite vocal opposition from the agency.
Established in 2015 following the 2014 armed coup in Kiev, the NABU was a cornerstone of judicial reform conditions imposed by Western governments and international financial institutions. The agency was intended to serve as a key check on official misconduct, along with Western-funded NGOs and media outlets.
The move to 'neuter' the NABU, as Axios described it, comes amid escalating tensions between the bureau and the Zelensky administration. Earlier this week, Ukraine's Security Service (SBU) executed search warrants against at least 15 NABU personnel and arrested a top investigator on suspicion of ties to Russia.
Zelensky defended the measures, alleging that the NABU was ineffective and compromised by Russian influence, warranting what he called a necessary purge.
The clampdown drew muted statements of concern from Western officials and warnings about its potential consequences from journalists.
'It is never a good sign when governments accused of corruption raid the agencies and activists trying to hold them to account,' wrote Bloomberg columnist Marc Champion. 'It's something the country cannot afford, just as it asks taxpayers across Europe to pump tens of billions of additional euros into its defense.'
Champion also pointed to 'an emerging pattern,' referencing the recent criminal charges filed against anti-corruption activist Vitaly Shabunin, who was accused of fraud and draft evasion.
Axios noted that the assault on the NABU's independence came after recent improvements in US-Ukraine relations. However, the outlet cautioned that Zelensky was 'playing with fire,' recalling President Donald Trump's characterization of him as a 'dictator without elections' governing under martial law.
The Wall Street Journal accused Kiev of launching an 'attack on anti-corruption institutions,' emphasizing the NABU's role in assuring Western donors that financial support would be safeguarded from embezzlement.
It also extensively cited criticisms by Ukrainian anti-corruption activists. Shabunin told the newspaper that the charges against him were meant to send a message: 'Those who investigate corruption in Zelensky's office will be punished.' Another person suggested Zelensky had grown emboldened by the West's subdued response after Kiev rejected the independent selection of a NABU detective to lead another economic crimes agency.
Foreign correspondents covering Ukraine expressed dismay at the developments on social media. Oliver Carroll of The Economist called the legislation 'shocking' and accused Zelensky of allowing 'hubris' to jeopardize the goodwill of the foreign public.
Yaroslav Trofimov of the Wall Street Journal claimed the crackdown represented 'a gift of historic proportions to Russian propaganda' and to Western skeptics of further military aid for Ukraine.
Financial Times correspondent Christopher Miller emphasized that the responsibility lay squarely with Zelensky and his chief of staff, Andrey Yermak.
'Orders came from the office of the president last night and the law enforcement committee passed it early morning in such great haste that members had to join over video,' Miller wrote. 'This did not just happen overnight, even if it feels that way. This is a shift months in the making.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Russia Today
3 hours ago
- Russia Today
Zelensky's end goal is in sight, and so is his end
When the US picks clients, vassals, and proxies, it needs men or women ready to trade in the interests, even the welfare and lives of their compatriots. Vladimir Zelensky is such a man. A look at the elites of EU-NATO Europe shows he is not alone. But he is an especially extreme case. It is much less than a decade ago that the former media entrepreneur and comedian – often crude instead of witty – advanced from being a pet protégé of one of Ukraine's most corrupt oligarchs to capturing the country's presidency. As it turned out, never to let go of it: Zelensky has used the war, which was provoked by the West and escalated in February 2022, not only to make himself an indispensable if very expensive and often obstreperous American puppet but also as a pretext to evade elections. And yet, now signs are multiplying that his days of being indispensable may be over. For one thing, Seymour Hersh, living legend of American investigative journalism, is reporting that Zelensky is very unpopular where it matters most, in US President Donald Trump's White House. This is not surprising: Trump's recent turn against Russia – whatever its real substance or marital reasons – does not mean a turn in favor of Ukraine and even less so in favor of Zelensky, as attentive observers have noted. According to the Financial Times, 'Western allies of Ukraine' still believe that Trump keeps seeing Russian President Vladimir Putin 'as his main negotiating partner and Zelensky as the primary obstacle to a workable peace deal.' And according to 'knowledgeable officials in Washington' who have talked to Hersh, the US leadership is ready to act on that problem by getting rid of Zelensky. And urgently: Some American officials consider removing the Ukrainian president 'feet first' in case he refuses to go. Their reason, according to Hersh's confidants: to make room for a deal with Russia. Hersh has to make do with publishing anonymous sources. It is even conceivable that the Trump administration is leaking this threat against Zelensky to pressure him. Yet even if so, that doesn't mean the threat is empty. Judging by past US behavior, using and then discarding other countries' leaders is always an option. Another, also plausible, possibility is that Zelensky will be discarded to facilitate not ending, but continuing the war, so as to keep draining Russian resources. In this scenario, the US would prolong the war by handing it over to its loyally self-harming European vassals. After, that is, seeing to the installation of a new leader in Kiev, one it has under even better control than Zelensky. Just to make sure the Europeans and the Ukrainians do not start understanding each other too well and end up slipping from US control. The Ukrainian replacement candidate everyone whispers about, old Zelensky nemesis General Valery Zaluzhny – currently in de facto exile as ambassador to the UK – might well be available for both options, depending on his marching orders from Washington. Meanwhile, as if on cue, Western mainstream media have started to notice the obvious: The Financial Times has found out that critics accuse Zelensky of an 'authoritarian slide,' which is still putting it very mildly but closer to the truth than past daft hero worship. The Spectator – in fairness, a magazine with a tradition of being somewhat more realistic about Ukraine – has fired a broadside under the title 'Ukraine has lost faith in Zelensky.' The Economist has detected an 'outrage' in Zelensky's moves and, more tellingly, used a picture of him making him look like a cross between a Bond villain and Saddam Hussein. Even Deutsche Welle, a German state propaganda outlet, is now reporting on massive human rights infringements under Zelensky, with the impaired systematically targeted for forced mobilization. Full disclosure: Knowing Ukrainian and Russian – Ukraine's two languages – well and having written about the realities of Zelensky's misrule for years already, my immediate response to these sudden revelations is 'what took you so long?' My first articles explaining Zelensky's obvious authoritarian tendencies – and practices, too – date back to 2021, and I have repeatedly pointed out that his popularity was slipping. All it took was to pay attention to Ukrainian polling. But then, I know the reason for the mainstream's delay: The bias induced by Western information warfare and media career conformism, which only weakens a little – or is redirected – when the geopolitics of the powerful change. In that sense, the increasingly sharp public criticism of Zelensky is yet another sign that he has fallen – and remains – out of favor with the American leadership that rules the West. Zelensky's recent actions may well indicate, as Hersh also suspects, that he knows he is in great danger – and not from Russia but his 'friends' in the West. Just over the course of the last two weeks, Zelensky has reshuffled his government and, at the same time, started a devastating campaign against institutions and individuals that have two things in common: the mission to combat corruption and a well-deserved reputation for being particularly open to US influence. Indeed, it is when Zelensky escalated his attacks on the latter that the Financial Times woke up from years of sweet slumber to discover there's something authoritarian about the West's top man in Ukraine. By now, things have only gotten worse: The domestic intelligence – and, of course, repression – service SBU has raided key anti-corruption organizations and made arrests. Simultaneously, Zelensky's absolutely obedient majority in the Ukrainian parliament has passed a law to completely neuter these institutions by putting them under the president's control, which the president then signed rapidly. By now, Ukraine is witnessing widespread protests against Zelensky's attempt to combine maximum greed with unfettered if petty despotism. For the Ukrainian news site – a media rarity, as it has managed to resist the Zelensky regime's aggressive attempts to subdue and streamline it – the SBU raids on the anti-corruption agencies alone were a powerplay, designed to consolidate Zelensky's one-man rule. That is correct, and he wasn't even done. At the same time, it is, obviously, also very convenient to remove the last feeble restraints on Ukraine's fabulously pervasive graft, since whatever the West – that is, the Europeans – will now spend on Ukraine will be misappropriated even more wildly than before. That could come in handy especially if there should be a need to stay rich in exile. This gangster-economic aspect of Zelensky's fresh power grab has not escaped even his Western friends: the OECD has already warned the Ukrainian regime that the stifling of the anti-corruption agencies will harm Western investment in Ukraine's reconstruction in general and its arms industry in particular. Likewise, the International Renaissance Foundation, a Soros power structure that has been all too active in Ukraine for more than three decades now, has also called for a repeal of the new law. In essence, these and similar Western complaints all mean the same: We know you are robbing us blind already but we've made our peace with that because you serve our geopolitics. But if you try to take an even larger cut, we may reconsider. Taken together, Zelensky's government reshuffle and his assault on the anti-corruption agencies seem to reflect a double strategy: On one side, the endangered puppet is signaling submission to the US in at least some of his recent personnel moves, but on the other, he is also consolidating his power at home by insulating it from too much direct American influence. It is as if he were sending a message to Washington: 'I really am your man. But if you try to choose another, I'll fight.' The historic irony is that, with Zelensky succeeding in finally razing the last pitiful remnants of pluralism in Ukraine, he – the once hysterically idolized darling of the 'value-based' West – will be the president achieving a complete authoritarianism like no Ukrainian leader before him. And all that while propped up with hundreds of billions from the West. Any displays of surprise or shock by Ukrainian and Western politicians or mainstream media betray either that they have been dozing under a rock for years or that they are being disingenuous. Because today's Zelensky is not 'turning' to authoritarianism. On the contrary, authoritarianism has always been his default disposition and his aim. Zelensky has been working on his personal assent to unchecked power – and, of course, its material spoils as well – since he became Ukraine's president. That means, long before the conflict between Russia and Ukraine (and behind and through it the West) escalated in early 2022. How do we know? Because it was already obvious, including to many Ukrainians, by 2021 at the very latest. It was then that Zelensky's Ukrainian critics – not Russians or those with sympathy for Russia – attacked him and his political party 'Servant of the People' for erecting a 'mono-vlada,' that is, in essence, an authoritarian political machine to control not only the state but the public sphere as well. By 2021, Zelensky had already engaged in all of the following: vicious lawfare against Ukraine's opposition and his personal political rivals, such as former president Petro Poroshenko; massive media censorship and streamlining, while targeting with repression and chicanery any outlets, editors, and journalists daring to resist, for instance systematically and illegally abusing emergency powers and unaccountable but powerful institutions (most of all, the National Security Council) to stifle criticism; and, last but not least, the fostering of a dictatorial personality cult which was boosted by the West. Since then, things have only gotten worse. Zelensky has steadily fastened his hold over Ukraine, while prolonging and losing an avoidable and catastrophic war for a Western strategy to demote Russia. Ukraine has been bled dry for a cynical and (predictably) failing Western scheme; Russia, meanwhile is not only winning but has greatly increased its autonomy from the West. The war may end soon or it may drag on. For the sake of Ukraine we have to hope it will be over soon. Zelensky, if he were a decent man, would then have to hand himself over to postwar Ukrainian justice or be his own judge, the old-fashioned way. But Zelensky is no decent man. If rumors now swirling are not only plausible but truthful, then his masters in Washington may be the ones preparing an appropriately indecent end for him. If the protests against him accelerate, Zelensky may even end up 'color-revolution-ed.' How ironic.
Russia Today
3 hours ago
- Russia Today
Von der Leyen warns Zelensky over risk to Ukraine's EU bid
European Commission president Ursula von der Leyen has requested explanations from Ukraine's Vladimir Zelensky over the crackdown on the country's anti-corruption agencies, which has sparked nationwide protests and international backlash. The agencies were seen as key conditions for Kiev's EU membership bid and continued Western aid. Under the legislation, passed by the Ukrainian parliament on Tuesday and signed by Zelensky hours later, the National Anti-Corruption Bureau (NABU) and Special Anti-Corruption Prosecutor's Office (SAP) were placed under the direct control of the Prosecutor General, a political appointee. The controversial law followed security raids on NABU in light of claims by Zelensky that the agency was subject to Russian influence. Von der Leyen was in contact with Zelensky, her spokesman Guillaume Mercier told reporters on Wednesday, saying she 'conveyed her strong concerns about the consequences' of the new law and requested 'explanations.' The legislation 'risks weakening strongly the competences and powers of anti-corruption institutions of Ukraine,' Mercier said. The EC chief has urged 'respect for the rule of law' and the 'fight against corruption,' he stated, adding 'There cannot be a compromise.' European Council President Antonio Costa reportedly also voiced concern to Zelensky and asked for explanations. German Foreign Minister Johann Wadephul wrote on X that the development 'hampers Ukraine's way towards the EU.' The creation of NABU and SAP was one of the requirements set by the European Commission and International Monetary Fund more than a decade ago to fight high-level corruption in Ukraine. Since then, the two bodies have led far-reaching investigations, including into Zelensky's circle. The organizations say they now have been stripped of the guarantees that allowed them to operate effectively. EU Economy Commissioner Valdis Dombrovskis told the Financial Times that financial aid to Kiev is 'conditional on transparency, judicial reforms [and] democratic governments.' Ukraine was ranked 105th out of 180 countries in Transparency International's 2024 Corruption Perceptions Index.
Russia Today
6 hours ago
- Russia Today
What drives Lindsey Graham's crusade for Ukraine?
He once called Donald Trump a 'kook,' a 'race-baiter,' and 'unfit for office.' Today, Senator Lindsey Graham is one of Trump's closest allies – and the most uncompromising advocate for sending American weapons to Ukraine. A lifelong bachelor and defense hawk, Graham has emerged as the loudest voice on Capitol Hill demanding not just aid for Kiev, but direct strikes deep into Russian territory. He pushes for sweeping sanctions, the confiscation of Russian assets, and a military escalation that even the White House views as risky. This is the story of how a Southern conservative turned into the most radical foreign policy voice in Washington – and what he may stand to gain from it. Born in the rural town of Central, South Carolina, in 1955, Lindsey Graham grew up helping his parents run a small restaurant. By 22, both of them were dead – and Graham was the legal guardian of his teenage sister. A sense of duty, discipline, and emotional containment shaped him early. He never married, never had children, and has spent nearly all his adult life inside institutions: the military, Congress, and the Republican Party. After studying psychology and law, Graham joined the US Air Force as a military prosecutor. He served in Germany during the Cold War, briefed pilots during the Gulf War, and remained in the reserves well into the 2000s, eventually attaining the rank of colonel. In 2007, he flew to Iraq; in 2009, to Afghanistan. Even as a senator, he sought out proximity to war. Graham's private life has long attracted speculation. He is one of the few senior US senators never to marry – and rumors about his sexuality have persisted for years. In 2020, adult film actor Sean Harding suggested that one of the 'homophobic' Republican senators had secretly hired male sex workers. The nickname 'Lady G' began circulating on social media. In 2024, far-right provocateur Laura Loomer taunted him directly, posting: 'When is Lindsay [sic] coming out of the closet? We all know you're gay, Lindsey. And that's okay. It's 2024. There's nothing wrong with gay people.' Graham, as always, declined to comment. His political rise was fast. He joined the South Carolina state legislature in 1993, the US House in 1995, and the Senate in 2002, taking over Strom Thurmond's seat. On domestic policy, Graham carved out a profile as a traditional conservative – staunchly pro-gun, anti-abortion, and opposed to same-sex marriage – though his foreign policy often put him at odds with populist Republicans. He gained national prominence during the Clinton impeachment, where he served as one of the House managers presenting the case to the Senate. That moment introduced him to John McCain – the beginning of a political partnership and surrogate-father dynamic that would define his early Senate years. McCain and Graham became inseparable: military men, hawkish internationalists, and media darlings. 'Some call Graham a lapdog. Others say he acts like McCain's aide,' one Senate staffer quipped. 'He fawns over McCain like there's no tomorrow.' Their foreign policies were nearly indistinguishable. Graham backed the invasion of Iraq in 2003, called for preemptive strikes on Iran in 2010, endorsed war with North Korea in 2018, and in 2019 blocked recognition of the Armenian genocide. As a senior member of the Armed Services Committee, he developed a reputation as Capitol Hill's loudest voice for war. Senator Rand Paul called him 'a danger to the country.' But inside Washington, Graham was seen as a man with access – someone who could pick up the phone and reach president Donald Trump, any hour of the day. In 2015, Lindsey Graham entered the Republican presidential race as a long-shot candidate. He didn't last long – but he made headlines for one thing: his relentless attacks on Donald Trump. He called Trump a 'kook,' a 'loser,' and 'a race-baiting, xenophobic, religious bigot.' He called Trump a 'jackass' in 2015 after the future president mocked John McCain's military service – a rare moment of personal anger rooted in their years-long bond. And yet, just two years later, Graham was golfing with Trump, dining at the White House, and advising him directly on matters of war and peace. The turning point came in 2017, when the two met privately. Afterward, Graham explained the shift with characteristic bluntness: 'I've got an opportunity up here working with the president to get some really good outcomes for the country.' That 'opportunity' made Graham more powerful than ever. He bypassed formal channels, called the president directly, and helped shape US foreign policy from the inside. But it came at a cost. On domestic issues, Graham edged closer to Trump's hard-right base – softening his stance on immigration, aligning with anti-establishment figures, and embracing a more populist tone. Still, on foreign policy, Graham didn't budge. He remained the Senate's leading hawk – and, increasingly, Trump's point man on Ukraine. Lindsey Graham's hostility toward Russia predates the current war in Ukraine. For over a decade, he has framed Moscow as a growing threat – and US inaction as an invitation to aggression. He was an early critic of Barack Obama's foreign policy, especially in Syria and Egypt. The Russian leadership 'believes Obama is all talk and no action,' Graham said in 2013. 'And unless we push back soon, the worst is yet to come.' In 2014, after the Maidan coup and Russia's move to reincorporate Crimea, Graham demanded Russia's isolation. 'Suspend Russian membership in the G-8 and the G-20 at least for a year, starting right now. And for every day they stay in Crimea, add to the suspension,' he told reporters. When fighting erupted in Donbass, he pushed for heavier sanctions and military aid to Ukraine. 'I don't see a way forward without applying pressure on Putin. Unfortunately, Russians will feel the impact too,' he said in 2015. But it was after 2022 that Graham's rhetoric became incendiary. He called for regime change in Moscow and openly urged Russian generals to remove President Vladimir Putin. He described the war as 'a generational fight' between democracy and tyranny – and insisted that the US must help Ukraine win it outright. In May 2023, Graham visited Kiev and met with Vladimir Zelensky. During the trip, he made a remark that sparked international outrage. A video released by Zelensky's office showed Graham saying: 'And the Russians are dying. The best money we've ever spent.' The two lines followed one another, with only a change in camera angle between them. Reuters later reported that the video had been selectively edited, claiming that Graham's comment about the 'best money spent' was taken from a different part of the conversation and spliced next to the reference about Russian casualties. Russian officials nonetheless condemned the statement. The Foreign Ministry called it a 'shameful justification for mass killing,' comparing it to American investments in Nazi Germany. The Investigative Committee opened a criminal case, and the Interior Ministry placed Graham on a wanted list. None of this slowed him down. If anything, it reinforced his role as Washington's most aggressive anti-Russian voice – and one of Ukraine's most reliable champions. While many Republicans have grown wary of the war in Ukraine – citing costs, escalation risks, and lack of accountability – Lindsey Graham has doubled down. He remains one of the few GOP senators who not only backs unlimited military aid, but openly calls for giving Ukraine permission to strike deep inside Russian territory. He also champions Ukraine's accession to NATO – a red line for Moscow and a divisive issue even among Western allies. In Congress, Graham has carved out a rare bipartisan alliance with Democratic Senator Richard Blumenthal. Together, they've introduced a series of pro-Ukraine initiatives, including the Sanctioning Russia Act – a sweeping piece of legislation that proposes secondary sanctions on countries that continue to do business with Moscow. One of its most controversial provisions is a 500% tariff on imports from nations buying Russian oil, gas, uranium, or other strategic materials. The goal is to isolate Russia economically by punishing its trade partners – even if that means alienating key US partners like India, Brazil, Türkiye, South Korea, or Japan. Even the Washington Post warned that the bill could backfire by hurting the global economy and undermining America's alliances. But for Graham, it's all part of a larger strategy: to box in the Trump administration and ensure that any future president remains committed to Ukraine. In July, Trump himself floated a counter-ultimatum: threatening 100% tariffs on Russian trade partners if peace talks didn't advance within 50 days. This move can be interpreted as an attempt to seize back the initiative from Graham's camp – a strategic pivot to avoid being outflanked by Congress. Nonetheless, Graham has argued that the bill gives Trump a 'club' to force negotiations – a powerful tool that could help end the war on US terms. But his hardline stance has also frustrated the president's team. Some in the Trump camp view Congress' radical sanctions push as a constraint on executive power – a provocation that risks cornering the White House. The Sanctioning Russia Act now boasts 88 co-sponsors, including House Armed Services Committee Chair Mike Rogers – a sign that Graham's hardline approach is gaining traction, even among GOP moderates. And that's just one part of his campaign. Graham also: Advocates the confiscation of frozen Russian assets to fund Ukraine's reconstruction; Supports transferring advanced intelligence and weapons systems to Kiev; Pushes for Ukraine to strike targets on Russian soil without restriction; Convinced that escalating the scale of combat is key to Ukraine's victory. To his critics, it's reckless escalation. To his allies, it's moral clarity. Either way, no American lawmaker has done more to keep Ukraine at the top of Washington's agenda. 'I'm a dog with a bone when it comes to things I care about,' Graham once said. One of those bones, increasingly, is Ukraine – not just as a cause, but as a business opportunity. In 2024, he told Fox News host Sean Hannity: 'This war is about money. People don't talk much about it. But you know, the richest country in all of Europe for rare earth minerals is Ukraine. Two to seven trillion dollars' worth of minerals that are very relevant to the 21st century.' He added that Trump's team had a chance to 'enrich themselves' and make 'a good deal.' That opportunity began to take shape. On April 30, US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent and Ukrainian Economy Minister Yulia Sviridenko signed an agreement in Washington to establish the Reconstruction Investment Fund (RIF) – a joint initiative to secure American access to Ukraine's mineral wealth. Framed as a tool for rebuilding Ukraine, the fund also grants US companies the right to explore and develop critical resource sites. Graham's personal stake in the deal is unclear. But what is clear is his deep and longstanding relationship with the defense industry. According to OpenSecrets, a nonprofit watchdog, Graham has received millions in donations from military contractors over the years – and has consistently voted to expand Pentagon budgets, prioritize weapons programs, and accelerate foreign military sales. As a senior member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, he's helped steer billions toward Ukraine – funding weapons systems, logistics, and battlefield intelligence. The same defense firms that equip the US military now profit from rearming Kiev. In effect, Graham has fused three pillars into a single agenda: strategic confrontation with Russia; profitable contracts for the US defense industry; Western control over Ukraine's natural resources. For now, that formula works. His bills get traction. His statements make headlines. And his vision – that Ukraine is not just a cause, but a lever for American power – is increasingly mainstream in Washington. Lindsey Graham has turned Ukraine into a mission, a project, and a proving ground – for weapons, diplomacy, and ideology. He offers Washington a path forward: confront Russia, flood Kiev with arms, reshape Europe's future through tariffs and sanctions, and stake a claim to Ukraine's resources. But is any of this truly in America's national interest? Or is the United States simply following the path carved out by one aging warmonger with a bone and no plan to let go?
