What’s Wrong With the Way We Talk About Corruption in Ukraine?
This week, Ukraine’s entire political, governmental and civic elite will gather in Rome for the Ukraine Recovery Conference (URC). There, they will discuss Ukraine’s biggest challenges, and, naturally, corruption will not be overlooked.
This is hardly surprising. Corruption remains a pressing issue at any time, but especially during wartime. It’s also clear why the media consistently cover corruption: public exposure remains a crucial tool in the fight against it.
But how can we talk about real problems, like the embezzlement of public funds, in a meaningful way? Especially when our enemy exploits domestic scandals, including corruption ones, for its own purposes.
When disinformation becomes a weapon: Russian manipulation and Western journalists’ questions
I first felt the impact of Russian disinformation in May 2022. Western journalists started questioning me intensively about corruption risks, particularly regarding military aid provided by international partners. They were actively seeking confirmation that American artillery might somehow "resurface" in the Middle East. My explanations about blocked ports and EU borders, which made it impossible to smuggle HIMARS unnoticed, failed to satisfy them. They wanted at least one example to support the Russian narrative that Ukraine is irredeemably corrupt.
The second wave of such questions came in September 2022, even though there had been no evidence of Western weapons being stolen during the first six months of the full-scale invasion. Around that time, the narrative that Ukraine is "Europe’s most corrupt country" gained traction.
The Russians proved resourceful. They cited our score on Transparency International’s Corruption Perceptions Index. Back then, Ukraine scored 32 out of 100 — better than a decade earlier (when we scored 26), but still lower than EU countries. Russian propagandists cherry-picked figures from 42 Council of Europe member states, putting Ukraine in 41st place — near the bottom. Russia’s own score was 28, but they kept silent about that, unlike the journalists who kept asking about corruption risks in Ukraine. When Ukraine’s score improved the following year, the narrative suddenly disappeared.
This shows how reputable data can be twisted to convince the world that Ukraine is a "cesspool of corruption" undeserving of support. Unfortunately, we still have to debunk these myths today.
Why it’s important to tell the truth about corruption
Yes, real corruption does exist in Ukraine — and it genuinely threatens the state’s effectiveness. In wartime, it threatens our survival itself: we must tackle corruption because it weakens our ability to resist aggression.
Yet even this fight can be perceived in different ways. For us, news about the arrest of the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court for bribery is a victory — clear proof that the anti-corruption system works. For Russians, however, it’s evidence to spread: "Look, even their Chief Justice is corrupt, so what can you expect from the rest?"
That’s precisely why we must talk about corruption openly. Fortunately, Ukraine has a strong community of investigative journalists and anti-corruption activists who ensure this problem does not go unnoticed. The fact that we can freely report on corruption, and have independent media largely free from state control, is already a major achievement, especially during a full-scale war.
The only way forward for the government: Acknowledge the problem and take responsibility
One of the biggest challenges in public communication is how our leadership talks about corruption. When top officials are asked about it in interviews, they often deny its existence outright, despite the numerous scandals of recent years.
But if leaders do not acknowledge the problem, there can be no systematic approach to communicating about it. I firmly believe it should start with a simple admission: "Yes, we have corruption. And here’s what we plan to do about it." Naturally, these plans must be put into action — not abandoned, as happened with the appointment of the head of the Bureau of Economic Security. The Cabinet of Ministers effectively rejected the selected candidate, saying, "This person doesn’t suit us — give us someone else," despite the fact that three international experts sat on the selection panel and fully endorsed that candidate.
Only then can Ukraine be described not as a "corrupt country," but as a country actively fighting corruption.
For now, however, we often see another "narrative" — government figures accusing anti-corruption whistleblowers of "working for Russia" when they present well-founded criticism and verified facts. This does nothing to help us resist Russian aggression or strengthen the country — it merely distracts from the real fight.
And we shouldn’t forget: not everything wrong in Ukraine is about corruption
It’s worth remembering that not everything the media labels as corruption actually involves the theft of public funds. Sometimes, it’s simply poor decision-making, which is not necessarily malicious.
Many decisions are made not by politicians, but by civil servants whose professional level may fall short. Because of the war, Ukraine’s labor market has lost millions of people, inevitably affecting the capacity of government bodies and local authorities. Here, we often see an extreme reaction: if something doesn’t go as people wish, it’s immediately blamed on someone "lining their pockets."
Yes, our democracy isn’t progressing at lightning speed — we are, after all, at war. But let’s not forget: no other country at war has ever been granted EU candidate status.
As a society, we continue to demand reforms and push them forward, and while not every attempt succeeds, as with the Cabinet’s decision on the BES competition, we are tackling extremely difficult tasks under wartime conditions. We are holding on, and in some areas even making progress, whereas in similar circumstances, other states have rapidly slid down global rankings for democratic freedoms.
We must learn to recognize and value our achievements, especially over the past decade. By appreciating these gains, we give reforms a chance to endure. And if something remains unfinished, we should focus on the next steps needed to get it done. We are fighting corruption — sometimes successfully, sometimes not. But we’re alive, we’re moving, we’re not static. And that is the hallmark of a democracy in progress.
