Latest news with #Sapo
Spectator
11 hours ago
- Politics
- Spectator
Can Ukraine forgive president Zelensky?
For six years in office, Volodymyr Zelensky never experienced the raging crowd beneath his window. But Ukraine's wartime president grew too powerful, too confident, bathing in the unwavering support of Ukrainians in the face of a greater evil. He overstepped. When Zelensky signed the bill stripping the anti-corruption institutions of their independence, he assumed Ukrainians would look the other way. They didn't. Protests against the law swept through the country. He did well to listen – and back down. But the damage to his image in Ukraine – and abroad – may now be beyond repair. On the third day since thousands took to the streets – after a cardboard sign declaring 'My father didn't die for this' was held aloft in front of him – Zelensky finally introduced a counter-law intended to cancel the scandalous one that had destroyed the independence of Ukraine's key anti-corruption bodies. Ukrainian lawmakers will return from their outrageous four-week holiday to vote on it in parliament. 'It is important that we maintain unity', Zelensky said. 'It is important that we respect the position of all Ukrainians'. The tape will rewind one week, and Ukraine's anti-corruption agency, Nabu, and the office of the anti-corruption prosecutor, Sapo, will continue investigating politicians regardless of their status. But questions will linger. What was it all for? What was the reason for this political suicide? There is no evidence of Zelensky's personal involvement in corruption, but the same cannot be said for those who share his office. In parliament alone, at least 17 MPs who voted for the scandalous bill have been suspected of corruption by Nabu. But most importantly, the bureau cast its eye over appointees linked to Zelensky's right-hand man, Andriy Yermak: Pavlo Kyrylenko, the current head of the Anti-monopoly Committee, suspected of illegally enriching himself by nearly £1 million, and Oleksiy Chernyshov, deputy prime minister, allegedly involved in a corruption scheme that cost the state more than £17 million. Both deny the claims. According to Holos MP Yaroslav Zheleznyak, Yermak was the mastermind behind the bill. Zelensky was persuaded that Nabu's digging into people around him had gotten out of control, harming his ratings. He thought that Ukraine's allies would swallow it without protest. In less than a day, the bill passed the Verkhovna Rada to the cheers, laughter and applause of 263 MPs, some of whom were under investigation by the very institutions they had just voted to destroy. By evening, nothing could stop Zelensky from signing it: not the pleas from the Ukrainian public gathered in front of his office in Kyiv, nor the appeals from G7 ambassadors, nor phone calls from French president Emmanuel Macron and Antonio Costa, European Council president. The pace was unprecedented for a president known to let dozens of draft laws gather dust on his desk for months. Appalled Ukrainians, including Zelensky's most avid supporters, saw this move as a blatant attempt by the government to steal and avoid accountability. They saw their blood-earned chance to join the EU snatched from under their noses by the very man they had stood behind for over three years of full-scale war. They watched as European and American allies began to question their continued financial support for Ukraine. The unwritten agreement – to set politics aside and focus on the common enemy, Russia – was broken. Zelensky, who still enjoyed 67 per cent public trust according to a recent Rating Group poll, was the one to crack it. His feat of staying in Kyiv and rallying the world behind Ukraine's cause when Russia invaded has now been stained. Even when this shameful law is scrapped, that stain will be impossible to wash off.
The Guardian
17 hours ago
- Politics
- The Guardian
Ukraine war briefing: Anti-corruption agencies endorse bill restoring their independence
The Ukrainian anti-corruption body, Nabu, said a new bill submitted to parliament on Thursday 'restores all procedural powers and guarantees of independence of the Nabu and Sapo'. Nabu investigates corruption cases and Sapo prosecutes them. A Nabu statement said both agencies took part in the preparation of the new law and they urged the parliament 'to adopt the president's initiative … in its entirety as soon as possible. This will prevent threats to criminal proceedings brought by the Nabu and the Sapo.' The EU welcomed Volodymyr Zelenskyy's move to reinstate the independence of the anti-corruption agencies after the shock adoption this week of a bill that stripped their autonomy. After protests on the streets and from international allies of Ukraine, the Ukrainian president said the further bill would ensure the rule of law and the independence of the anti-corruption agencies. An EU spokesperson said: 'We provide significant financial support to Ukraine and this is conditional to progress and transparency, judicial reform and democratic governance.' Those points were reinforced by European leaders with whom Zelenskyy consulted over the crisis, including Ursula von der Leyen, Friedrich Merz of Germany and the UK prime minister, Keir Starmer. There were tensions over the Ukraine war as EU officials met the Chinese president, Xi Jinping, in Beijing on Thursday. Antonio Costa, the European Council president, said the EU officials discussed 'at length' their expectations for China to discourage Russia in its war against Ukraine. The European Commission president, Ursula von der Leyen, prior to the meeting said China was 'enabling Russia's war economy'. Xi told EU to 'properly handle differences and frictions … The current challenges facing Europe do not come from China.' A Russian attack killed three family members already displaced by the war, authorities announced on Thursday. The father, mother and son had fled to the village of Pidlyman in the Kharkiv region of Ukraine after Russian forces invaded their home town. A strike later on Kharkiv city wounded 33 people, including a 10-year-old girl, a 17-year-old boy and girl, the governor said. A separate Russian drone and missile barrage wounded seven people including a child in the central Ukrainian region of Cherkasy, emergency services said. The US state department on Thursday said it had approved military sales worth US$330m to Ukraine comprising $150m worth of maintenance, repair and overhaul capability for M109 self-propelled howitzers, and $180m to sustain air defences. The Pentagon said contractors involved would include BAE Systems, Allison Transmission, Daimler Truck North America, Sierra Nevada Corporation, Radionix and Systems Electronic Export. The US on Wednesday announced sales of $322m related to Hawk surface-to-air missiles and Bradley infantry fighting vehicles. Reuters are reporting that an Indian company shipped $1.4m worth of an explosive used in missile warheads, rocket motors and bombs to Russia in December 2024 despite the threat of US sanctions, according to Indian customs data seen by the news agency. One Russian company listed as receiving the compound, known as HMX or octogen, was an explosives manufacturer, which Ukraine's SBU security service has linked to Moscow's military. An SBU official said Ukraine launched a drone attack in April against one of the company's factories. The US government has identified HMX/octogen as 'critical for Russia's war effort'. The US state department did not comment to Reuters on the specific shipments but said it had repeatedly communicated to India that companies doing military-related business with Russia were at risk of sanctions. However, under Donald Trump, Russia-related sanctions work has slowed to a trickle. India's foreign ministry said in a statement: 'India has been carrying out exports of dual-use items taking into account its international obligations on non-proliferation,' adding that such exports were subject to 'holistic assessment'.
The Guardian
a day ago
- Politics
- The Guardian
Why are Ukrainians angry with Zelenskyy? Because even during wartime, some red lines must not be crossed
For quite some time, foreign colleagues have been asking me about Ukraine's democracy during wartime. Often these questions assume that political freedoms vanish by default in a country at war. They ask whether protests or critiques of the government are even possible. Ukraine is a democracy at war – and democracy itself is an existential matter. It is precisely what the country is fighting for. My usual answer has been: 'The people will know when it's time to protest.' They will sense when too much power is being concentrated in security services, when parliament's role is being bypassed, when the prime minister or members of parliament are no longer acting independently. Ukrainians, I would say, will know when red lines are crossed. This week, many decided that such a red line had been crossed. On Tuesday thousands of people gathered in Kyiv to protest and call on Volodymyr Zelenskyy to veto legislation they believe undermines the independence of two key anti-corruption institutions: the national anti-corruption bureau of Ukraine (Nabu) and the specialised anti-corruption prosecutor's office (Sapo). The protest was largely youthful – many would have been kids during the 2014 Revolution of Dignity. Their chants included 'Veto the law!' and 'No to pressure on independent institutions'. Despite martial law, only two policemen were stationed nearby. The atmosphere was even cheerful. It was by far the largest protest since Russia's full-scale invasion in February 2022. Similar demonstrations took place in approximately 10 Ukrainian towns. And yet late that very night, Zelenskyy signed the bill into law. What shocked many was not just the content of the legislation but also the speed and manner in which it was pushed through: passed within a day, as an amendment hidden inside unrelated law enforcement reforms, and then signed and published almost immediately. Since the beginning of Russia's invasion, Ukrainians have demonstrated an extraordinary level of unity and civic responsibility. Citizens also showed renewed faith in the institutions of the state – even those long viewed with suspicion. People were willing to look past imperfections, to suspend criticism, and to focus on survival and victory. That is why there has been no serious internal push for wartime elections, despite foreign commentary. Elections – expensive, risky and constitutionally prohibited during war – are widely understood by Ukrainians to be unfeasible under current conditions. But this is different. This law has become a litmus test of whether public trust in the government can be sustained. And more than that, whether the unwritten social contract – between citizens and the state – still holds. The law adopted by Ukraine's parliament – formally known as draft law 12414 – includes sweeping changes that fundamentally alter the authority of Ukraine's anti-corruption bodies. The prosecutor general now holds expanded powers over Nabu and Sapo – including control over investigations, case access and team composition, and the authority to shut down cases or transfer them to other law enforcement bodies. The vote took place just one day after the security service of Ukraine (SBU) conducted searches at Nabu's offices, and Ukraine's state bureau of investigation (SBI) filed criminal charges against three Nabu employees over car accidents that occurred in 2021 and 2023. These incidents raised eyebrows for their timing. According to Nabu, the new provisions 'effectively destroy the independence of Sapo and place both Nabu and Sapo under the control of the prosecutor general'. The bureau reminded lawmakers that Ukraine's anti-corruption infrastructure, built in partnership with international allies since 2015, was a key precondition for western financial and political support. As institutions, Nabu and Sapo are not without flaws. Government representatives – both formally and off the record – have raised concerns about politicised investigations, poor coordination with other law enforcement agencies and even alleged infiltration by individuals sympathetic to Russian interests. The quality of investigations has also been criticised. Some probes have dragged on for years without result. Others, including cases against prominent business figures or former officials, have been accused of selective prosecution. There are also persistent rumours that Nabu investigations have touched individuals close to Zelenskyy himself. What makes this even more complex is that these institutions are tied to Ukraine's commitments for EU membership. And yet European integration – while deeply valued by Ukrainians – is no longer something the EU itself appears eager to actively advance. That makes it even easier for outside partners to use moments like this to distance themselves, to quietly say: 'Maybe Ukraine isn't ready after all.' But the deeper issue is this: none of Ukraine's law enforcement institutions are ideal – not during wartime, and arguably not before it. But Nabu and Sapo remain the most trusted parts of a law enforcement system long plagued by corruption and impunity. They were created not to be dismantled when they become inconvenient. The protesters are not defending a fantasy of flawless institutions but the principle that reform must not be replaced by control. Protests are likely to continue. The government will have to respond. Yes, there is war. But in a democracy there is a constitutional way forward: the law can be rescinded, amended, debated transparently. This cannot be fixed by one late-night briefing from the head of the security service or the newly appointed prosecutor general – nor by a photo opportunity where Zelenskyy stands alongside the heads of all law enforcement bodies. It requires real, public consultation. The demonstrators in Kyiv this week are sending a message. If there were questions about what the limits of government power during war should be, they were answered on Tuesday. Nataliya Gumenyuk is a Ukrainian journalist and CEO of the Public Interest Journalism Lab
The Guardian
a day ago
- Politics
- The Guardian
Why are Ukrainians angry with Zelenskyy? Because even during wartime, some red lines must not be crossed
For quite some time, foreign colleagues have been asking me about Ukraine's democracy during wartime. Often these questions assume that political freedoms vanish by default in a country at war. They ask whether protests or critiques of the government are even possible. Ukraine is a democracy at war – and democracy itself is an existential matter. It is precisely what the country is fighting for. My usual answer has been: 'The people will know when it's time to protest.' They will sense when too much power is being concentrated in security services, when parliament's role is being bypassed, when the prime minister or members of parliament are no longer acting independently. Ukrainians, I would say, will know when red lines are crossed. This week, many decided that such a red line had been crossed. On Tuesday thousands of people gathered in Kyiv to protest and call on Volodymyr Zelenskyy to veto legislation they believe undermines the independence of two key anti-corruption institutions: the national anti-corruption bureau of Ukraine (Nabu) and the specialised anti-corruption prosecutor's office (Sapo). The protest was largely youthful – many would have been kids during the 2014 Revolution of Dignity. Their chants included 'Veto the law!' and 'No to pressure on independent institutions'. Despite martial law, only two policemen were stationed nearby. The atmosphere was even cheerful. It was by far the largest protest since Russia's full-scale invasion in February 2022. Similar demonstrations took place in approximately 10 Ukrainian towns. And yet late that very night, Zelenskyy signed the bill into law. What shocked many was not just the content of the legislation but also the speed and manner in which it was pushed through: passed within a day, as an amendment hidden inside unrelated law enforcement reforms, and then signed and published almost immediately. Since the beginning of Russia's invasion, Ukrainians have demonstrated an extraordinary level of unity and civic responsibility. Citizens also showed renewed faith in the institutions of the state – even those long viewed with suspicion. People were willing to look past imperfections, to suspend criticism, and to focus on survival and victory. That is why there has been no serious internal push for wartime elections, despite foreign commentary. Elections – expensive, risky and constitutionally prohibited during war – are widely understood by Ukrainians to be unfeasible under current conditions. But this is different. This law has become a litmus test of whether public trust in the government can be sustained. And more than that, whether the unwritten social contract – between citizens and the state – still holds. The law adopted by Ukraine's parliament – formally known as draft law 12414 – includes sweeping changes that fundamentally alter the authority of Ukraine's anti-corruption bodies. The prosecutor general now holds expanded powers over Nabu and Sapo – including control over investigations, case access and team composition, and the authority to shut down cases or transfer them to other law enforcement bodies. The vote took place just one day after the security service of Ukraine (SBU) conducted searches at Nabu's offices, and Ukraine's state bureau of investigation (SBI) filed criminal charges against three Nabu employees over car accidents that occurred in 2021 and 2023. These incidents raised eyebrows for their timing. According to Nabu, the new provisions 'effectively destroy the independence of Sapo and place both Nabu and Sapo under the control of the prosecutor general'. The bureau reminded lawmakers that Ukraine's anti-corruption infrastructure, built in partnership with international allies since 2015, was a key precondition for western financial and political support. As institutions, Nabu and Sapo are not without flaws. Government representatives – both formally and off the record – have raised concerns about politicised investigations, poor coordination with other law enforcement agencies and even alleged infiltration by individuals sympathetic to Russian interests. The quality of investigations has also been criticised. Some probes have dragged on for years without result. Others, including cases against prominent business figures or former officials, have been accused of selective prosecution. There are also persistent rumours that Nabu investigations have touched individuals close to Zelenskyy himself. What makes this even more complex is that these institutions are tied to Ukraine's commitments for EU membership. And yet European integration – while deeply valued by Ukrainians – is no longer something the EU itself appears eager to actively advance. That makes it even easier for outside partners to use moments like this to distance themselves, to quietly say: 'Maybe Ukraine isn't ready after all.' But the deeper issue is this: none of Ukraine's law enforcement institutions are ideal – not during wartime, and arguably not before it. But Nabu and Sapo remain the most trusted parts of a law enforcement system long plagued by corruption and impunity. They were created not to be dismantled when they become inconvenient. The protesters are not defending a fantasy of flawless institutions but the principle that reform must not be replaced by control. Protests are likely to continue. The government will have to respond. Yes, there is war. But in a democracy there is a constitutional way forward: the law can be rescinded, amended, debated transparently. This cannot be fixed by one late-night briefing from the head of the security service or the newly appointed prosecutor general – nor by a photo opportunity where Zelenskyy stands alongside the heads of all law enforcement bodies. It requires real, public consultation. The demonstrators in Kyiv this week are sending a message. If there were questions about what the limits of government power during war should be, they were answered on Tuesday. Nataliya Gumenyuk is a Ukrainian journalist and CEO of the Public Interest Journalism Lab
The National
2 days ago
- Politics
- The National
Zelenskyy can't risk cracks in trust as war still rages
His Russian counterpart Vladimir Putin and the Kremlin are the most obvious, having quite literally set out to target Zelenskyy in the immediate wake of Russia's invasion of Ukraine in February 2022. More recently, it has been the turn of US president Donald Trump and his Maga cohorts, with Trump earlier this year calling Zelenskyy a 'dictator', before this month making a now familiar political pivot and sending more weapons to Ukraine. It's no secret that not everyone in Ukraine is a fan of Zelenskyy. But visit the country as I have numerous times since the start of the war and you will rarely hear open criticism of the Ukrainian president, who without doubt has proved the most dogged and seemingly unflappable wartime leader. READ MORE: Repurposed Cold War-era building opens as state-of-the-art rocket test facility It's not that ordinary Ukrainians are afraid to criticise him as Zelenskyy's detractors have suggested. For if there's one thing Ukrainians certainly cannot be accused of, it's fear in the face of any authoritarianism, as their protests during the 2013-14 EuroMaidan Revolution and subsequent standing up to Russia's invasion have shown. To put this another way, most Ukrainians know exactly who poses the real threat to their country right now. Tackling that threat head-on by stopping Putin's advancing hordes and Ukraine from being obliterated by missile and drone strikes has been the main preoccupation of the country's citizens. Earlier this week though, Zelenskyy put that public support to the test like never before, when he took the very controversial step of moving to take control of Ukraine's anti-corruption bodies – the National Anti-Corruption Bureau (Nabu) and Special Anti-Corruption Prosecutor's Office (Sapo). No sooner had parliament passed the contentious draft bill No 12414, than Zelenskyy signed it into law, rejecting calls for him to use his presidential veto. To say that the move surprised and dismayed some would be an understatement. For the first time since 2022, some Ukrainians took to the streets in cities like Kyiv, Lviv and Dnipro, while civil society activists and some of Ukraine's European partners and allies expressed their deep concern. Writing on social media even before Zelenskyy had signed off on the bill, the European Union (EU) enlargement commissioner, Marta Kos, said it would have a negative impact on Ukraine's membership negotiations. 'Independent bodies like Nabu and Sapo are essential for Ukraine's EU path,' she wrote. For a long time now, corruption and judicial independence have been two of Brussels' biggest concerns over Ukraine's candidacy to join the EU, which is the country's biggest financial supporter. Under the new law, the prosecutor general, Ruslan Kravchenko, who is seen by many as a Zelenskyy loyalist, will now oversee anti-corruption investigations making it easier, say critics, for the government to control which cases are pursued. They warn too that the move marks a complete U-turn on the system that was set up with the exact purpose of being independent and will make political interference that much easier. In its editorial, the Kyiv Independent newspaper pulled no punches in its criticism, running the headline: 'Zelenskyy just betrayed Ukraine's democracy – and everyone fighting for it.' READ MORE: State pension age rises target the north of the UK disproportionately The newspaper also asked the important question as to why do it now, before in part answering the same question saying that 'anti-corruption agencies have been a nuisance for the political elite – as they should be'. The newspaper also reminded readers that Ukraine's anti-corruption infrastructure was set up in the years following the EuroMaidan Revolution. Out of that turmoil it was seen as one of the positives of the movement that overthrew the corrupt pro-Russian president Viktor Yanukovych, who fled to Moscow by helicopter in 2014 after months of street protests. One Ukrainian government official according to The Economist magazine even suggested that the speed and scale of the latest bill passing into law was reminiscent of the infamous protest-banning laws of January 16, 2014, that were one of the last acts of the Yanukovych government. There's no question that the optics of Zelenskyy's move make for a precarious moment. To start with, it has happened at the worst possible time given the recent shift in US policy in Ukraine's favour. Then there is the inescapable fact that it makes a total gift of a critical narrative to bad faith actors – and we're not just talking about Moscow here. It was interesting to note that the American Republican far-right congresswoman, conspiracy theorist and all-round loose cannon, Marjorie Taylor Greene, went on Twitter/X claiming that footage of the protest in Ukraine's cities were in fact about Zelenskyy 'refusing to make a peace deal' or 'ending the war.' Total lie as it was, that's not the kind of mischief-making message Zelenskyy needs at this or any other moment coming out of Washington's corridors of power – albeit from such a well-known Maga mouthpiece. Not only were Greene's claims a total fabrication, they fly in the face of evidence that following Russia's recent escalation of air strikes, Ukrainian resolve to resist has also intensified. For his part, Zelenskyy claims that his move to weaken the anti-corruption watchdogs was intended to purge Russian interference, infiltrators and spies. 'The anti-corruption infrastructure will operate. But only without Russian influences – everything must be cleansed of that,' Zelenskyy insisted. READ MORE: Labour panned for foreign aid cuts as women and children to be hit hardest Some agree with Zelenskyy in that given the absence of an audit in Nabu, it made it vulnerable to penetration by Russian intelligence. Among those who share such a view is Ukrainian political scientist Taras Zahorodnii. 'This bill is a step towards finally taking control of a structure that for some reason began to turn into a branch of the FSB,' Zahorodnii told the Ukrainian news agency UNN, referring to the Russian security service. There's no doubt that in wartime, leaders often have to make decisions that put the country's security first, even at the expense of some civil liberties. History is replete with examples. But for now, Zelenskyy's decision appears to be widely regarded as not one of his better ones. Internal divisions in Ukraine of course would suit Putin and the Kremlin to a tee. For exactly that reason the words of Ukraine's very canny, head of military intelligence Kyrylo Budanov have a particular resonance at this dangerous moment. 'Ukrainian history has taught us that a nation loses if it is torn apart by internal contradictions,' noted Budanov in the wake of the past few days events. He's right, but whether this will actually wash with many Ukrainians only the coming days will tell.
