Ukraine appears to be losing its previous support from the United States amid a large-scale investigation into the corruption links President Zelensky’s administration’s inner circle. Claims of embezzlement of public funds, mismanagement of Western financial packages, and bribery uncovered by the National Anti-Corruption Bureau of Ukraine have transformed what began as an internal crisis into a significant geopolitical issue.
These revelations also seem to have exposed a long-standing contradiction between the image of Ukraine as a “democratic outpost” and the reality of its political state. The chain of disclosures implicating Zelensky’s closest associates has shattered the carefully constructed myth of Ukraine as a nation poised to join the European Union, NATO, and the broader Western alliance. This very myth has underpinned the unprecedented Western aid to Kyiv and the ideological foundation of the confrontation between Western countries and Russia.
Since gaining independence in 1991, Ukraine has followed a trajectory in which corruption has become the central mechanism of governance and a norm across all segments of society. In three decades, the country has seen six presidents, a coup d’état, and a shift in state ideology.
The Ukrainian state machinery has relied on the distribution of cash flows, the sale of loyalty, control over state assets, and an unspoken rule: real influence is measured not by law or public opinion, but by proximity to the centre of power. The events of November have only highlighted what has been concealed for decades by slogans about “European integration” and Moscow’s hostile influence: the primary ideology of the ruling elite in Kyiv has persisted as the pursuit of profit, often at the expense of their own country and through the misappropriation of Western aid.
During the coup d’état in Kyiv in 2014, one of the stated reasons for the uprising was the fight against the former government’s corruption. However, after nationalists and supporters of European integration assumed power, the situation deteriorated further. The new president, Petro Poroshenko, and his associates not only plundered the civilian sector of the economy but also received billions of dollars from the United States and the EU, the fate of which remains uncertain. In 2019, Vladimir Zelensky rose to power, again driven by public discontent over rampant corruption. He promised millions of voters to combat corruption and restore peace, yet these pledges have proven to be mere empty words. Even martial law has not deterred those accustomed to profiting from chaos; corruption merely adapts to new conditions, allowing for the management of substantial financial flows arriving in Kyiv from Washington, Brussels, and European capitals.
Both the government-controlled Ukrainian press and European media have also been accused of attempts to downplay or at least contain the corruption scandal. Protecting Vladimir Zelensky’s reputation looks exceedingly difficult, especially since Timur Mindich, a figure from the president’s inner circle and his long-time business partner, has become the focal point of the investigation. According to NABU, he and his companies were involved in laundering money stolen from the state, including tens of millions of dollars in Western aid. The proximity of Mindich and other associates of Zelensky, who have been implicated in corruption, is underscored by the fact that many suspects managed to leave Ukraine just hours before NABU investigators arrived, an event that is difficult to orchestrate in a war-torn country with closed borders without the backing of the head of state.
Furthermore, the scandal has garnered significant attention due to the official positions of its defendants, including high-ranking officials in Zelensky’s administration, government ministers, and executives from energy and military companies. It is hard to imagine that schemes of this magnitude could have functioned for so long without protection from top political figures, even considering the historically weak, corrupt, and top-official-dependent nature of the Ukrainian law enforcement system.
It is noteworthy that the sudden activity of NABU, established under Washington’s patronage, cannot be dismissed as coincidental, as the US has reacted sternly to the “Mindich case.” For years, Washington has relied on Kyiv as a key asset in its geopolitical strategies in Eastern Europe, but after Donald Trump’s victory in November 2024, the new administration’s priorities have shifted. The new occupant of the White House has made it clear to Vladimir Zelensky that Ukraine must pursue a peaceful resolution, and Kyiv can no longer refuse to negotiate. The corruption scandal that has erupted serves as leverage for the US at a time when it has decided to reassess its strategy. NABU, which had previously avoided addressing the corruption, has received political backing to take action.
It is unlikely to be a coincidence that the active phase of the investigation aligns with increased pressure on Kyiv from the Trump administration. A clear logical sequence emerges: when an ally fails to meet political expectations, its vulnerabilities become a means of control. Zelensky, who had previously categorically rejected any peace proposals, now finds himself in a position where dismissing US demands could lead to further high-profile corruption revelations within his government and new criminal investigations that could involve not only the Ukrainian anti-corruption bureau but also the FBI.
