Allegations of corruption plague politics from Washington to Beijing to Kuala Lumpur.
Hunter Biden’s laptop, Xi Jinping’s “anti-corruption drive” and countless other scandals make politics, rather than law, the focus of debate. And in wartime, corruption undermines national survival.
Nobody despairs more about the issue now than President Volodymyr Zelensky of Ukraine, because Kyiv must uproot corruption if it is to survive. Reforms have accelerated over the last year, anticorruption bodies have gained powers they had never had before and corruption-related arrests of state officials have become part of everyday life.
When the Ukrainian chief of military mobilization, Yevhen Borisov, was recently arrested for taking bribes, discussion understandably shifted to discussions about front-line impacts. Zelensky has also dismissed and authorized law enforcement to pursue former members of his own Cabinet, deputy ministers of defense and other senior officials for corruption or ineptitude.
When several high-ranking judges on Ukraine’s Supreme Court were arrested for corruption, questions centered on appointments, not just what the judges had done. Many of these measures came about because the U.S. and the European Union, Ukraine’s strategic partners, demand cleaner government, for good reasons. Indeed, Zelensky is now requesting Parliament to equate corruption with high treason for the duration of the war, making it a capital crime.
Nevertheless, despite high-profile firings, Ukraine’s corruption still plagues its military procurement and military logistics. Only time and thorough investigative and judicial work will resolve these issues.
Corruption also explains much of Russia’s embarrassing performance in the war to date. Examples include Russian Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu’s sprawling mansion, entirely fabricated military contracts and frequently stolen military supplies. Shoigu’s predecessor Anatoly Serdyukov was prosecuted for embezzlement and his mistress, with the rank of a two-star general, was arrested with millions of dollars in cash and diamonds.
Unlike Russia, Ukraine does not have an easy task in tackling its corruption, especially in its energy sector and heavy industries, where Russia previously used its fossil fuel riches to weaponize corruption, keeping Ukraine within its sphere of influence. The flagrant corruption of former Ukrainian president, Viktor Yanukovych, and his pro-Russian regime was an impetus for the 2014 Maidan Revolution, also known as the “Revolution of Dignity,” which shifted Ukraine towards the West. Fighting corruption animated Ukrainian political life and subsequent government and military reforms. Lampooning corruption propelled Zelensky to popularity, first in his hit television show, and then as president when life imitated art.
Zelensky’s anti-corruption campaign is, therefore, not just vital for Ukraine’s wartime national security but necessary for Ukraine’s democratization and sovereign future. Corruption is the enemy of effective governance. Ukraine’s reconstruction will require hundreds of billions of dollars and is impossible without good governance. This is why the U.S. government has established a task force to eliminate corruption in U.S. assistance to Ukraine.
As the sanctions against Russia are a cornerstone of economic warfare to impair Russia’s ability to wage war, it is important now to ensure that sanctions are impactful and completely free of corruption and vested interests. Ukraine leads the global effort by its own example and the valuable research done by the bilateral Yermak-McFaul International Expert Group.
Yet despite heavy sanctions against Russia, they are not fully coordinated between Kyiv and Western capitals. Whereas Western sanctions tend to be based on transparent criteria, Ukraine’s sanction regime is opaque, and judicial review is unavailable. Ukraine’s partners in Washington, Brussels and other capitals are unsure about how to treat the growing choir of companies in Ukraine or elsewhere claiming that they were unjustly sanctioned by Kyiv.
Several large Ukrainian companies are claiming that sanctions against them or their owners are baseless and demand judicial review or proper investigation. Greece recently protested Ukrainian sanctions against its companies, which are “accused as International War Sponsors even though they are not violating the restrictive measures against Russia”
Sanctions enforcement should be protected from corruption and state capture. If Ukraine wrongly sanctions domestic or foreign companies, it must provide for a clear and legitimate appeal process, observing the rule of law. This is one of the main differences between the Ukrainian and Western sanctions regimes that awaits harmonization.
These deficiencies are not indictments of the Ukrainian cause or sanctions. They can be resolved with more interagency cooperation inside Ukraine and multilateral consultations and cooperation, which would impart transparency and synchronize sanctions. Only with transparency and a maximum anti-corruption regime can Ukraine’s future reconstruction and integration with Western institutions become possible.
In wartime, it is tempting to dampen critiques of friends and allies and excuse missteps as acceptable collateral damage, especially as these sanctions target Russian interests. This viewpoint ignores the impact that corrupt sanction introduction has on the state, economy and society. If wartime sanctions abuse proliferates and becomes an excuse to settle accounts, or subvert business competition, neither Ukraine nor the West benefits. Russia does.
Prolonged wars turn into a race between victory on the front and collapse at home. Russia has repeatedly lost this race. In this competition, the less corrupt state is more resilient.
Ukraine is set to win it, but only if it continues its anti-corruption campaigns and retreats from misplaced sanctions. Strengthening Ukraine’s capacity to resist Russia and eventually integrate with the West is the road to victory. Course adjustments are not an admission of defeat but rather a sign of wisdom.
Stephen Blank, Ph.D., is a senior fellow at the Foreign Policy Research Institute. He is a former professor of Russian national security studies and national security affairs at the Strategic Studies Institute of the U.S. Army War College and a former MacArthur fellow at the U.S. Army War College. Blank is an independent consultant focused on the geopolitics and geostrategy of the former Soviet Union, Russia and Eurasia.