On November 11, Ukraine’s National Anti-Corruption Bureau (NABU) revealed one of the largest embezzlement schemes in the country’s post-1991 history. Based on a 15-month investigation and 1,000 hours of wiretapping, NABU claims that a group of officials and presidential associates took bribes from companies seeking lucrative government contracts from Energoatom, Ukraine’s state-owned nuclear energy agency. According to NABU, the scheme has resulted in the misappropriation of 100 million hryvnia (approximately $2.4 million). The revelations are particularly significant for two reasons. Firstly, because they implicate President Zelensky’s closest associates, Timur Mindich and Andriy Yermak; and, secondly, because the scheme will exacerbate the acute hardships that Ukrainians will face this winter by further weakening an energy infrastructure already heavily damaged by Russian attacks.
The fact that the scheme has come to light at all is testament not only to the strength of Ukraine’s anti-corruption institutions, but also to the commitment of Ukrainian society itself to this work. Pro-democracy advocates who stand with Ukraine must hammer home this point to counteract attempts by Russia and its mouthpieces to overblow the scandal for their own ends. Doing so would not only highlight the remarkable strides that Ukraine has made in government accountability since the 2013-14 Revolution of Dignity, but also reduce Russia’s ability to force Ukraine into an unjust capitulation.
Given that Russia has been claiming since the Revolution of Dignity in 2013-14 that the Kyiv “regime” is dictatorial and corrupt, it is no surprise that they have delighted in covering the so-called “Mindich-gate”. Prominent pro-Russia figures such as Jeffrey Sachs and Hungarian president Viktor Orban have propagated these narratives, with the former claiming that “Zelensky and his henchmen” are profiting from the war, and the latter that the scandal proves that Ukraine is “not ready” for EU membership.
While neither NABU nor the Specialized Anti-Corruption Prosecutor’s Office (SAPO) have implied any guilt on President Zelensky’s part, the Energoatom scandal undoubtedly tarnishes his personal image. Mindich – a close friend from his days as a comedian – fled the country in an apparent admission of guilt, and Yermak – the highly unpopular and now former head of his presidential office – is believed by many among civil society and law enforcement alike to be implicated.
Pro-democracy advocates who stand with Ukraine can counter Russian attempts to exploit these facts by pointing to the context of the revelations. On July 22, President Zelensky signed a law passed by the Verkhovna Rada, Ukraine’s parliament, to limit the independence of NABU and the Specialized Anti-Corruption Prosecutor’s Office (SAPO). The move triggered the first major protests in Kyiv’s streets since 2022, with citizens decrying the law as a betrayal of Ukraine’s democratic path. A mere 72 hours later, President Zelensky and the Verkhovna Rada – which his Servant of the People party dominates – backed down, introducing a new law to restore NABU and SAPU’s independence. It is because of Ukrainians’ commitment to the democratic principles of transparency and accountability, and their trust in the efficacy of anti-corruption institutions, that some of the country’s highest-ranking officials are now in the hot seat. Mindich would not have fled if he did not consider Ukraine’s anti-corruption institutions capable of holding him accountable. Likewise, it is unlikely that Yermak would have resigned if he thought that President Zelensky could ride out the domestic calls for his dismissal.
So far, the reaction from Ukrainian civil society has been relatively muted. There has been no repetition of the rapid street mobilization that occurred in July. The Anti-Corruption Action Center has been the most vocal following the revelations, but even it has not issued any specific calls for action. This does not mean that Ukrainian society is complacent but rather suggests a trust in NABU and SAPO to do their jobs.
While, for many legitimate reasons, Ukraine cannot and should not hold elections right now, President Zelensky and his party are no doubt aware that there will one day be a reckoning at the ballot box. July’s protests have shown just how dedicated Ukrainians are to transparency and accountability, so the government’s response to the current investigation will likely be a key issue whenever elections occur.
When formulating responses, international donors, human rights, and pro-democracy organizations should take their cues from Ukrainians themselves. In practice, this would involve supporting the country’s robust civil society organizations and independent media so that they can continue to serve as effective watchdogs, for the Energoatom case and others, thereby providing citizens with the information they need to be able to mobilize and make informed decisions whenever the opportunity to do so arises.
Spurred on by its EU candidate status and the resulting need to fulfil the membership criteria, Ukraine is facing the uniquely difficult challenge of having to reform internally at the same time as fighting an existential war against an external aggressor. While the commitment of Ukrainian citizens to democracy is unquestionable, the Energoatom case will be a litmus test for how far that commitment extends into the institutions that are supposed to serve them. Pro-democracy advocates who support Ukraine must hold up the Energoatom scandal not as a symbol of the supposed weakness of Ukrainian democracy, but rather of its persistent strength against the odds.