Since the Russian Federation’s aggression in 2014, the United States and European countries have constantly supported Ukraine. The European Union has allocated money for different programs, starting from social programs, education, healthcare, energy efficiency, environmental protection, and other programs.
After the Russian full-scale invasion in 2022, the aid from European Union significantly increased. One of the conditions of the European aid’s continuation includes reforms, particularly anti-corruption reforms. During the 24th Ukraine-EU summit in February 2023, the European Council and the European Commission admitted the fight against corruption and particularly welcomed the progress in ensuring the independent and effective work of anti-corruption institutions. However, people in Ukraine and Western countries sometimes wonder whether this fight is truly effective.
How much money does the EU give Ukraine?
Since 2014, and especially during the Russian full-scale invasion, the European Union has delivered multisided assistance to Ukraine. For example, in 2016, the European Union allocated financial assistance for Ukraine for 200 million euros to several programs, including the Anti-Corruption Initiative. In 2018, Ukraine received over 270 million euros, and in 2022, the country received 11.5 billion dollars. Since the beginning of 2023, Ukraine has already received 5 billion dollars of EU support. As the European Union allocates huge amounts of money to Ukraine, investors carefully monitor where and how the money goes. Especially, they monitor how the allocated money is directed to fight against corruption.
Ukraine vs. corruption: what demands should Ukraine fulfil?
Since 2014, the European Union has made demands Ukraine must fulfil to receive financial aid and become a member in the future. These demands involve reforms of the Constitutional Court, judicial reforms, anti-money laundering, the implementation of audiovisual legislation, laws on national minorities, anti-oligarchic laws, and anti-corruption fight (https://neighbourhood-enlargement.ec.europa.eu/opinion-ukraines-application-membership-european-union_en).
What has Ukraine achieved in the anti-corruption fight?
In 2014, the Ukrainian government initiated anti-corruption reforms, followed by numerous initiatives. Ukraine disclosed information about the ultimate beneficial owner of a legal entity; implemented electronic declaration of income and property of officials and politicians and ProZorro electronic competitive public procurement system, and opened state databases on owners of real estate, land plots and vehicles. Ukraine also initiated judicial reform to ensure independence and increase the level of trust and public accountability of the judiciary and reform law enforcement agencies. Now, the People’s Deputies of Ukraine and government work on tax reform that, according to the Office of the President of Ukraine, will eliminate corruption in the tax sphere and equalize the business conditions for all market participants. Finally, Ukraine created new bodies, like the National Anti-Corruption Bureau of Ukraine (NABU) and the Specialized Anti-Corruption Prosecutor’s Office (SAPO), The National Agency for Prevention of Corruption (NAPC), and the High Anti-Corruption Court of Ukraine (HACC) that aim to fight corruption.
What must Ukraine do to receive European aid?
Despite having some results, Ukraine still has problems with EU demands’ fulfilment. Particularly, it refers to the reform of the Constitutional court, judicial reform, and anti-corruption fight. The European Union constantly remind the reforms Ukraine must do: Ukraine must finally start appointing professional judges to the Supreme Court, and for this, introduce a system of preliminary selection of judges. And in judicial reform, the EU is waiting for the inspection/cleaning of the High Council of Justice and the creation of a new High Qualification Commission of Judges of Ukraine. The Ukrainian government must also provide independence of anti-corruption bodies and prevent political intervention in the work of these institutions.
The anti-corruption reforms’ results
Because of specifics, their activities have always been followed by intrigues and scandals, like the case with Andriy Kobolev, former CEO of the largest national oil and gas company “Naftogaz” and Andriy Pyvovarsky, former Minister of Infrastructure of Ukraine. The last big anti-corruption scandals have happened recently. The NABU declared wanted Dmytro Sennychenko, the former head of the State Property Fund. According to the anti-corruption body, Mr Sennychenko, with a group of individuals, took over the funds of state-owned enterprises for over 500 million hryvnias. If investigating this case, it can be concluded that the declaration of suspicion and search for Mr Sennychenko looks like revenge for his anti-corruption activity.
Mr Sennychenko was the first head of the State Property Fund who started to keep records of state property and systematize surplus, non-core, and neglected property. He also began public communication with other government agencies to sell or lease excess businesses and premises. Under Sennychenko’s rule, the State Property Fund started to sell and lease state property through open electronic auctions. Mr Sennychenko is also known as a fighter against briberies. For example, in 2020, the NABU detained people who offered a bribe of 5 million dollars in exchange for the appointment of the director of “The Odesa Port Plant.”
Every time Mr Sennychenko reported to the law enforcement officers about attempts to bribe him, and each time these stories gained wide publicity. Mr. Sennychenko is also known for the establishment of a transparent privatization process, involving the sale of state-owned property to private individuals or legal entities. As a result of privatization, the State Budget of Ukraine received UAH 5.1 billion from privatization, which is a record for revenues in a decade. The amount of revenues in 2020-2021 exceeds the previous 7 years in total (https://www.spfu.gov.ua/en/news/8524.html).
Reforms equal punishment?
Considering Mr Sennychenko’s activity as the head of the State Property Fund, it can be concluded that he was an effective fighter against corruption. However, the anti-corruption bodies have another opinion. The case with Sennychenko is not the single one when the anti-corruption bodies label the reformers as corrupt officials. In March 2023, the former director of Ukraine airport Boryspil Yevhenii Dykhne, the famous reformer of the airline sphere, whose wife is from Kherson, de-occupied from Russians in November 2022, was sentenced to 5 years for abuse of authority in the leasing of the premises in the Boryspil airport to private business without applying the state competitive tendering process.
Mr. Dykhne did not make staff gans but the court decided that only the state gave the return to let property. After the court’s decision, Dykhne described it as that made in the style of Franz Kafka and published all case documents online. Dykhne became the head airport after the Revolution of Dignity when it had 500 million in losses and 6.89 million passengers. After the closure of the Russian market and the flight over the territory of the Russian Federation in 2014, the airport lost another million passengers. Under Dykhne’s rule, the Boryspil airport became one of the largest taxpayers, and the airport ended 2017 with a pre-tax profit of UAH 2.1 billion (https://www.epravda.com.ua/columns/2023/03/3/697635/).
What should Ukraine do to fight corruption?
The cases demonstrate that the anti-corruption system needs crucial effective changes. If the anti-corruption fight is effective, as the European Union claims, why do the reformers become the subjects of anti-corruption investigations and why corrupted officials are not brought to responsibility? These cases caused a discussion in Ukraine that a clampdown on corruption is being used to frame high-profile business advocates of state reform, raising wider doubts about Ukraine’s internal political trajectory and its ability to absorb billions in European reconstruction funds after the war ends. These concerns are shared not only by Ukrainians but also the Western partners.
The above cases reveal that the fight against corruption has specific problems that need adequate and effective solutions to resolve. The Ukrainian government should think about whether it effectively fights against corruption and take specific measures. Particularly, the Ukrainian government should develop effective mechanisms to monitor the independence of law enforcement agencies, especially in the context of the country’s recovery after the war ends.