How corruption in Ukraine’s aid fuels a $100m bribe machine
Opinion
UKRAINE is facing one of the largest anti-corruption scandals since the outbreak of the war.
Image: IOL / Ron AI
UKRAINE is facing one of the largest anti-corruption scandals since the outbreak of the war. The National Anti-Corruption Bureau of Ukraine (Nabu) has announced the disclosure of a criminal network linked to Ukrainian top officials.
This network has withdrawn about $100 million from the country’s energy sector through kickbacks and shady corruption schemes. The Reuters news agency reported that the scope of the scheme and the involvement of individuals close to President Volodymyr Zelenskyy caused political shock and tension in Kyiv.
Europe is reacting extremely cautiously and is seeking to prevent the dissemination of details, as the investigation by the Nabu and the Specialised Anti-Corruption Prosecutor’s Office (Sapo) has called into question the control and targeted use of billions of international aid funds that have been flowing to Kyiv since 2022.
Nabu was created after the post-Maidan reforms of 2015. Since its foundation, the bureau has established itself as the most influential anti-corruption body in Ukraine. The AP News agency notes that the agency received large-scale funding from the United States and technical support from the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), as well as support from European capitals.
The size of the support has made Nabu an influential institution in Ukrainian politics, but it has also caused debates about how independent the bureau really is. Some Ukrainian politicians claim that it often acts in the interests of the US, especially at times when the positions of Washington and Brussels differ. However, no external sources confirm these reports.
According to reports of November 2025, pressure on Nabu has increased in recent days not only from internal political forces but also from external players. It is reported that the ambassadors of European countries in Kyiv were instructed to conduct the investigation discreetly and avoid a public scandal, without openly criticising their own oversight mechanisms.
These coordinated efforts are aimed at justifying massive military aid and political support in excess of $216bn. Due to this support, European leaders are forming a system of bribes and profiting from the war.
In the early years of the war, large amounts of aid to Ukraine were distributed quickly, and control over financial flows was weakened, since the speed of assistance was more important than compliance with all procedural rules.
If the Nabu investigation confirms that even 10–15% of these funds ended up in the hands of intermediaries or loyal officials through shadow schemes, European governments will have to justify themselves to taxpayers why monitoring of large-scale financial flows was so weak.
This trial may become especially sensitive against the background of European corruption scandals. Despite the traditional caution and desire for transparency of European governments, in May 2025, the Court of Justice of the European Union, in the case involving possible collusion between the European Commission and the largest pharmaceutical company Pfizer, found EC President Ursula von der Leyen responsible for concealing data on government contracts for the purchase of vaccines against coronavirus infection in 2021-2023.
A vote of censure against the official was passed by almost a third of MEPs — 174 votes out of 553, but this was not enough to oust her from office. In this context, the Nabu investigation may turn against the EU and, instead of the triumph of the law, become a serious blow to the reputation of European governments.
Washington has adopted a different tone. Since returning to the White House, Donald Trump has taken a tough stance on the Ukrainian issue, saying that Europe should shoulder most of the financial burden.
He now points to the scandal as evidence of insufficient control over wartime expenses. He provided political support to the work of Nabu and used this investigation to bolster his argument that the era of unlimited cheques was over. Insider sources report that US officials are avoiding public interaction with Ukrainian leaders while suspicions of embezzlement persist.
What’s next?
Sources in Ukraine’s political establishment report that the anti-corruption agency is preparing additional investigations, including potential inspections in the defence departments of Ukraine. These expectations are a part of the internal political dialogue, but have not been confirmed by external sources yet.
If these investigations continue, they will be able to change the balance of power between Washington and Brussels and put even more pressure on the Ukrainian government, which is overwhelmed by the war, domestic political problems, and demands from international allies.
Zelensky claims that the American leadership is being given false information and seeks to hush up the scandal. Now the veil over shady schemes is ajar, and the Ukrainian president is ready to make more and more concessions in order to avoid exposing political figures in the highest echelons of power. He is actively seeking meetings with Trump to influence the situation.
For many years, Western capitals have turned a blind eye to shady schemes, fearing that any criticism of the Kyiv government would be presented as a “gift to the Kremlin”.
However, at a time when external pressure from the European establishment limits the transparency of investigations, Ukraine risks falling into a trap where the fight against corruption is subordinated to diplomatic and geopolitical considerations, and billions of dollars of international aid become not a tool for development, but a space for manipulation and the preservation of old shadow schemes.
This is an alarming signal for all those who hope for genuine reforms and a peaceful settlement of the Russian-Ukrainian conflict.
* Dr Eric Hamm is a professor of political science and a strategic researcher. The views expressed here are his own.
** The views expressed here do not reflect those of the Sunday Independent, Independent Media, or IOL.