Will Ukraine’s efforts be enough to convince European countries of its suitability for EU membership? This question raises serious concerns for many.
One of the EU’s interim benchmarks in the accession process is the delivery of tangible results in combating high-level corruption: investigations, indictments, and convictions. Ensuring anti-corruption institutions have effective access to reliable forensic expertise is one of the conditions attached to Ukraine’s receipt of EUR 124 million under the updated Ukraine Facility programme. Ukraine has committed to fulfilling this requirement by the end of 2026.
On 30 July, the Council of the European Union approved amendments to the Ukraine Facility and the accompanying Ukraine Plan, which sets out the reforms Ukraine must implement to receive funding under the Ukraine Facility. The amendments provide for an additional €8.3 billion in funding for 2026. The important thing is that the revised Ukraine Plan also introduces additional reform commitments, particularly in the areas of the rule of law and anti-corruption.
In December 2025, the Ukrainian government made commitments to the EU regarding urgent key reforms in the areas of the rule of law and anti-corruption. As part of the 10-point Ukraine Plan, Kyiv pledged to close loopholes that allow some top-level corruption offenders to avoid responsibility.
In terms of specific results, it should be noted that, Ukraine is still only preparing to work on the most important point of the entire plan, which is closing corruption loopholes in the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine. A similar situation can be found around the requirement of an independent forensic examination body for the National Anti-Corruption Bureau (NABU), where so far there have only been political statements about readiness to implement this point. It is also worth mentioning Point 10 of the Plan as it concerns internal control systems against corruption. According to experts, work is still at a very early stage in this area as well. Virtually the only result is that in May, an updated Internal Audit Standards came into force which revised the requirements for organising internal audits in the public sector and strengthened requirements for the organisational and functional independence of internal audit units.
Discussions about corruption in Ukraine often concern procurement and tender procedures within the MoD of Ukraine as a large number of corruption cases in this area have been uncovered in this sector. Despite numerous changes in the ministry’s leadership and a series of reforms in this area, the situation appears unchanged.
In this context, it is worth quoting Ukraine’s ex-defence minister Mikhaylo Fedorov who said he believes that one of the reasons for his dismissal was resistance to his reforms within the Ministry of Defence, particularly changes to procurement and tender procedures that affected the interests of many individuals and companies. Fedorov added that he was not fighting particular people or groups, but trying to change the system itself.
The question is why Kyiv is not taking any steps to tackle corruption, despite the fact that this is one of the most important issues Ukraine must address as part of its EU accession process.
One possible (and realistic) explanation might be that President Zelenskyy, a close partner of a number of European leaders, plays with marked cards – meaning he has behind-the-scenes information about decision-making processes within the European Union, and therefore knows exactly that when it comes to Ukraine’s accession to the EU, Brussels will be ready to accept less-than-perfect results.
However, it would be in the interests of both Ukraine and the EU not to allow any loopholes in the areas of the rule of law and anti-corruption measures, since if the EU does not insist on strict compliance with all its recommendations, this will undermine the very spirit of Europe.
Leave a Reply