Ukraine's Parliament approves law restoring independence of anti-graft watchdogs following backlash
Last week's measure by Zelenskyy to place the watchdogs under the oversight of the prosecutor-general prompted rebukes from Ukrainians, the European Union and international rights groups. It raised fears that the government could meddle in investigations and potentially shield its supporters from scrutiny.
Fighting entrenched corruption is crucial for Ukraine's aspirations to join the EU and maintain access to billions of dollars of vital Western aid in the nearly 3½-year all-out war. It's also an effort that enjoys broad public support.
EU Enlargement Commissioner Marta Kos, who called last week's legislative changes 'a serious step back,' welcomed approval of the bill, saying lawmakers had 'corrected last week's damaging vote.'
'Today's law restores key safeguards, but challenges remain,' Kos, who monitors the record of countries that are candidates to join the bloc, wrote on X. 'The EU supports (Ukrainian) citizens' demands for reform. Upholding fundamental values & fighting corruption must remain the priority.'
Ukrainian Foreign Minister Andrii Sybiha said his country 'is committed to reforms and the fight against corruption' and that Zelenskyy 'demonstrated a principled approach.'
'We got it fixed,' he wrote on X.
At the start of a livestream of the parliamentary session, which was the first to be broadcast live since Russia's full-scale invasion, two lawmakers could be seen exchanging punches. Although the reason for the scuffle was not known, it occurred amid a tense atmosphere in the chamber where the speaker's podium is flanked by Ukrainian and EU flags.
The backlash against Zelenskyy's measures brought street protests across the country, the first major demonstrations since Russia's full-scale invasion began on Feb. 24, 2022. Though the protests didn't call for the president's removal, the controversy threatened to undermine public trust in their leaders at a critical time.
Russia's bigger army is accelerating its efforts to pierce Ukraine's front-line defenses and is escalating its bombardment of Ukrainian cities. There is also uncertainty over how much additional weaponry Ukraine's Western partners can provide and how quickly.
The Ukrainian branch of Transparency International also criticized last week's legislation, saying it weakened one of the most significant reforms since what Ukraine calls its Revolution of Dignity in 2014.
Zelenskyy said his goal had been to speed up prolonged investigations, ensure more convictions and remove Russian meddling in investigations, which he didn't detail.
He said he had taken note of the protests and decided to present a new bill to Parliament underscoring that the prosecutor general and his deputies cannot give orders to anti-graft agencies or interfere in their work.
Lawmakers in the Verkhovna Rada, the Ukrainian Parliament in Kyiv, approved Zelenskyy's new proposal with 331 votes and nine abstentions on Thursday, official figures showed.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
4 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Uncertainty around tariffs is a disincentive for pharma onshoring in the US
Marking another chapter in the narrative around US tariffs, a new agreement signed in the last fortnight between the European Commission and the US Government now means a 15% tariff will be imposed on all imports, including pharmaceutical drugs, into the US from the European Union (EU). Soon after, President Trump also reinforced the government's plans to introduce international reference pricing through the 'Most Favored Nation' (MFN) executive order. CEOs of major pharma companies have talked about devising plans to address these changes. While some have downplayed concerns, others have noted their interest in working towards certain proposals, like platforms for direct-to-patient drug sales. Health policy and management expert Dr Mariana Socal studies the dynamics behind drug pricing in the US, and the different stakeholders involved in this space. She is an associate professor in health policy and management at Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health. In an interview with Pharmaceutical Technology, she unpacks what the latest news could mean for drug prices in the US. This interview has been edited for clarity. Manasi Vaidya (MV): How do you think they might this latest 15% tariff on EU drug imports could impact drug prices in the US? Mariana Socal (MS): The US already pays much higher prices than any other country for branded drugs; on average, we pay an estimated three to four times higher prices than other countries pay for the same drugs. In addition to that, the most concerning part is that Americans consistently report being unable to afford the drugs they need. Surveys consistently show that about one in every four Americans has had trouble affording a medication because of the cost. So, through that lens, any additional price increase would be very detrimental to access for the American public. Additionally, the most expensive drugs in the US are for those conditions where there's only one drug manufacturer. If the drug manufacturer is faced with a tariff and raises the price, they are absolutely authorised to do so. They have autonomy in setting the price in the US market. There is no way to find another producer elsewhere because the drug is under patent, and that is a real big problem with respect to affordability. The second thing is that even if the consumer can afford a drug, the health insurance plan will be paying the price, and this can result in higher premiums in the following year. So, it's not only about the very immediate effects of higher prices, it's also about the medium-term to long-term impact that it can have on our system. MV: Earlier this year, pharma companies announced manufacturing plans in the US in response to potential tariffs. Is this latest tariff on EU companies enough to convince them to manufacture drugs in the US? MS: It is hard to make a prediction, but we can talk about the incentives here. We know the US is the biggest pharmaceutical market in the world, so that's a big incentive. We also know that these drug manufacturers have a monopoly, which means, if they choose to relocate [manufacturing] or not, they will still hold the rights to produce that drug. Each drug manufacturer will calculate how much the US market represents to them, and what the likelihood is that any drug utilisation would go up or down under the scenario of a tariff or under the scenario of relocating manufacturing to the US. Another thing is that these tariffs have been proposed and renegotiated many times, and I think there is still a very significant uncertainty around them. No drug manufacturers like uncertainty because manufacturing, developing and producing a drug require very long-term investments. If a drug manufacturer wants to relocate production, this is a years-long activity. The uncertainty about the tariffs is a disincentive to [making] these investments, because it's unclear whether those efforts would pay off in the long term or if the tariffs would be renegotiated. MV: And that can happen if the administration changes and the next one decides to go a different way? MS: Exactly, things can change anytime, as they have in the last few months. And, so I think any decision would depend on how much certainty they have with respect to what the market will look like, at least in the next 5–10 years. If we're talking about building a new manufacturing facility, that's a very long-term investment. But even if a facility is already present, and it's only about expanding or shifting production to a different drug, everything has to be FDA-approved. And at the very minimum, an approval by the FDA takes time, let alone the time needed to create the production lines, a building, and things like that. MV: For conditions where multiple manufacturers produce similar drugs, will the tariffs now mean that US-based companies will have a pricing advantage over European manufacturers? MS: Once a tariff is implemented, a product that is manufactured in a tariff-affected country would have higher costs than before the tariff. Meanwhile, US products will not have the added cost from the tariff. To what extent this would translate as a "pricing advantage" for the US product is unclear, however. Production costs are typically higher in the US than in other countries - e.g., higher labour costs, higher tax burden, etc. While the US-made product is not subject to a tariff, it remains to be seen on a product-by-product basis whether the tariff added to the foreign-made product is high enough to result in a price that is higher than the price of the US-made product. MV: Soon after the tariffs on the EU drug imports were announced, the administration doubled down on the MFN executive order for international reference pricing for drugs in the US. What do you think could change in terms of drug prices in the near future? MS: I think the administration has a point in questioning why our prices are so much higher than other countries. But the answer to that question is not to just impose on drug manufacturers and require them to pay. Our market today allows drug manufacturers to do that [set prices]. Other countries have, for example, value-based pricing in which they allow the price, up to a certain point, according to the actual value that the drug brings to the market. In this country [US], we have a market-based system, where the drug manufacturer is allowed to set the price of the drug, and drug manufacturers will set the price to the level that the market can bear. The most immediate effect from these conversations is probably that drug manufacturers are now making these calculations and thinking about what will happen if they follow the administration's requirements versus not, and they will adjust their prices accordingly. MV: Another factor mentioned in the latest MFN news is the direct-to-patient sales. Could such approaches impact drug prices? MS: We don't currently have this incentive of allowing the drug manufacturer to sell directly to the consumers structured into the market. There is a lack of clarity on how it would work in practice. How big would the market be for this type of direct-from-manufacturer sales? Drug manufacturers will want answers to this so they can know the optimal pricing point for their drug. Another scenario could be just increased drug prices in anticipation of tariffs. There's enough empirical information to show that in these moments of external shocks, manufacturers, in general, can use them as a justification to increase prices, even if their products were not directly affected. That's an unintended consequence, which is unfortunately also possible. MV: We've seen manufacturers try to sell diabetes and obesity drugs to consumers through third-party online pharmacies. Can we glean trends from that? MS: If a person gets their drug from a hospital, clinic or a pharmacy, these providers must protect the patient's personal information. But drug manufacturers are not bound by patient protection or privacy protection laws. So part of the problem here is that even the legislative framework to protect patients in situations when patients are sharing their personal information and buying drugs directly from the manufacturers is not prepared. And that's a big problem in my opinion. On paper, this may look like an interesting idea, but in practice, we may be exposing patients to providers who are not equipped to grant them the safety in the delivery of the products. On top of all the other questions, we should also be talking about how to protect patients who choose to engage in those direct-from-manufacturer purchases. Navigate the shifting tariff landscape with real-time data and market-leading analysis. Request a free demo for GlobalData's Strategic Intelligence . "Uncertainty around tariffs is a disincentive for pharma onshoring in the US" was originally created and published by Pharmaceutical Technology, a GlobalData owned brand. The information on this site has been included in good faith for general informational purposes only. It is not intended to amount to advice on which you should rely, and we give no representation, warranty or guarantee, whether express or implied as to its accuracy or completeness. You must obtain professional or specialist advice before taking, or refraining from, any action on the basis of the content on our site. Sign in to access your portfolio
Newsweek
7 minutes ago
- Newsweek
Russia Using Donald Trump Peace Talks to Divide US and Europe: ISW
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. The upcoming summit between President Donald Trump and his counterpart Vladimir Putin is being used by the Kremlin to divide the U.S. from Europe over the war in Ukraine, according to analysis. That assessment by the Institute for the Study of War (ISW) comes amid a diplomatic flurry involving Ukraine's European allies and concerns that Friday's talks between the leaders in Alaska could present the Russian president with an advantage. Russian officials want to weaken cohesion between the U.S, Ukraine and Europe by promoting the latter two as barriers to a deal to end the war, the Washington, D.C.-based think tank said. Ukrainian geopolitical analyst Viktor Kovalenko told Newsweek Monday the summit was "a vital diplomatic breakthrough for both the U.S. and Ukraine." Newsweek has contacted the White House for comment. President Donald Trump and Ukraine's President Volodymyr Zelensky meet in the Oval Office of the White House in Washington, DC, February 28, 2025. President Donald Trump and Ukraine's President Volodymyr Zelensky meet in the Oval Office of the White House in Washington, DC, February 28, It Matters Kyiv and its allies are concerned that the Russian president is not interested in any deal given that he has not backed down on his goals of fully subjugating Ukraine. This is especially pertinent given that it has been reported the U.S. is proposing swapping land Moscow partially occupies for peace, which Volodymyr Zelensky has rejected. What To Know The Kremlin and Russian media have responded positively to Friday's meeting which will see Putin's first visit to the U.S. in a decade to Alaska, a U.S. state which was part of the Russian empire until 1867. Putin has refused a U.S.-proposed ceasefire Ukraine backs, demanding Kyiv forgo NATO membership and withdraw troops from partially-occupied Donetsk, Luhansk, Zaporizhzhia and Kherson regions as preconditions for peace. It has been reported that Trump has said he and Putin will discuss a ceasefire proposal involving Kyiv ceding eastern territories to Russia, which Zelensky has firmly rejected, warning it would allow Moscow to regroup and attack again. But Europe would also oppose such a deal and so officials close to the Kremlin have presented the continent, rather than Moscow, as the barrier to peace. Russian political scientist Sergei Markov told The Washington Post that Russia's main interest in the summit is to portray Ukraine and Europe rather than Russia as the obstacles to a deal. Meanwhile, former Russian President Dmitry Medvedev said on social media that "Euro-imbeciles" are trying to stop the U.S. from striking a deal. This echoed a view from the head of the Russian Liberal Democratic Party (LDPR), Leonid Slutsky, who is part of the systemic opposition but backs Putin's foreign policy, said European countries are trying to prevent a quick peace settlement in Ukraine. The ISW used these examples as showing the Kremlin's intentions to use the Alaska summit to divide the U.S. from Europe rather than engage in meaningful peace efforts. Moscow has not budged from its long-term goals of preventing Ukraine from joining NATO, the installation of a pro-Russian proxy government, and Ukraine's demilitarization, which would ensure Ukraine's full capitulation, the ISW said. Russia will also very likely violate any ceasefire while blaming Ukraine for the violations as it repeatedly did in spring 2025, the think tank added. The White House is considering inviting Zelensky to the summit, said the ISW, on the back of several reports citing sources familiar with the matter. Kovalenko, from Ukraine Decoded, said this reported move by Washington signaled its awareness of Ukrainian concerns and contradicted Trump critics who have framed the event as sidelining Kyiv. If Zelensky had a role, he could propose a phased deal in which Russian withdraws from most of the regions of Kherson and Zaporizhzhia, including its nuclear power plant, in exchange for gradual sanctions relief, Kovalenko told Newsweek. Crucially, Ukraine must retain its so-called "fortress belt" in Donetsk and Luhansk, a bulwark against future Russian incursions, he added. What People Are Saying Institute for the Study of War (ISW) on Sunday: "The Kremlin is attempting to use the upcoming Alaska summit to divide the United States from Europe rather than engage in meaningful peace efforts." Viktor Kovalenko, from Ukraine Decoded substack: "The Alaska summit could halt the bloodshed, but without Ukraine's buy-in and a focus on Russian withdrawal from key regions, it risks becoming a diplomatic mirage." What Happens Next Before the Alaska summit, diplomatic wrangling is likely to continue with Bloomberg reporting how European leaders are likely push the conversation toward a ceasefire based on the current front line as a first step toward a broader settlement, rather than a proposal to swap land for peace.
Yahoo
9 minutes ago
- Yahoo
European leaders to meet virtually on Ukraine before call with Trump
BERLIN (Reuters) -Germany is convening a virtual meeting of European leaders on Wednesday to discuss how to pressure Russia to end the war in Ukraine ahead of a European call with U.S. President Donald Trump, a government spokesperson said on Monday. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy and EU and NATO officials are set to join the meeting at 1400 CET (1200 GMT) with the leaders of Germany, Finland, France, Britain, Italy and Poland, the spokesperson said. The calls come ahead of a scheduled meeting between Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin on ending the war in Ukraine in Alaska on Friday. Trump has said the parties to the war were close to a deal that could resolve the three-and-a-half-year-old conflict.
