Ukraine’s Anti-Corruption Investigation Appears To Be On The Brink Of Implicating Zelensky

The New York Times’ recent report about his government’s responsibility for the worst corruption scandal in Ukraine’s history suggests that the walls are closing in and his foreign media allies are jumping ship out of desperation to retain some of their credibility after years of deifying him.

It was earlier assessed that “Ukraine’s Anti-Corruption Investigation Is Turning Into A Rolling Coup” after it took down Zelensky’s grey cardinal Andrey Yermak, consequently weakened the already shaky alliance keeping him in power, and thus placed more pressure upon him to cede Donbass. The latest development concerns the New York Times’ (NYT) report about how “Zelensky’s Government Sabotaged Oversight, Allowing Corruption to Fester”, which brings the investigation closer to implicating him.

It also represents a stunning narrative reversal after the NYT spent the past nearly four years practically deifying him only to now inform their global audience that “President Volodymyr Zelensky’s administration has stacked boards with loyalists, left seats empty or stalled them from being set up at all. Leaders in Kyiv even rewrote company charters to limit oversight, keeping the government in control and allowing hundreds of millions of dollars to be spent without outsiders poking around.”

Predictably, “Mr. Zelensky’s administration has blamed Energoatom’s supervisory board for failing to stop the corruption. But it was Mr. Zelensky’s government itself that neutered Energoatom’s supervisory board, The Times found.” Just as scandalously, “The Times found political interference not only at Energoatom but also at the state-owned electricity company Ukrenergo as well as at Ukraine’s Defense Procurement Agency”, the latter of which Kiev plans to merge with the State Logistics Operator.

None of this was a secret either: “European leaders have privately criticized but reluctantly tolerated Ukrainian corruption for years, reasoning that supporting the fight against Russia’s invasion was paramount. So, even as Ukraine undermined outside oversight, European money kept flowing.” The NYT then detailed the political meddling employed by Zelensky’s government to “impede the (supervisory) board’s ability to act” and therefore facilitate the worst corruption scandal in Ukraine’s history.

Their report is significant since it strongly suggests that there’s now tacit consensus between the NYT’s liberal-globalist backers, the conservative-nationalist Trump Administration, and the US’ permanent bureaucracy (“deep state”) about the need to expose Zelensky’s corruption. Gone are the days when he was presented as the next Churchill since he’s now being portrayed as no less corrupt than the strongmen in Global South countries that most Americans have never heard of or can place on a map.

To be sure, the aforementioned liberal-globalists and members of the “deep state” (oftentimes one and the same) still oppose Trump’s envisaged endgame in Ukraine, but they seem to have concluded that a ‘phased leadership transition’ is in their and Ukraine’s interests. It appears inevitable that the anti-corruption investigation will soon implicate Zelensky so it’s best for them to get ahead of the curve in order to retain some credibility among their audience and possibly shape the next government.

Their goal isn’t to facilitate Ukrainian concessions like Trump wants in exchange for Putin agreeing to a profitable resource-centric strategic partnership after the conflict ends but to clean up some corruption and thus optimize government operations in the hope of inspiring the West to rally around Ukraine. It’s likely a losing bet, however, since the political momentum favors Trump’s vision. In fact, his opponents’ narrative reversal arguably advances Trump’s goal, but they’ll accept that to save their credibility.