A Window of Opportunity for Ukraine’s Anti-Corruption Reforms: Reflections on Study Trip to Ukraine

In early December, the German-Ukrainian Bureau (DUB) organized and led a transatlantic expert group to Ukraine as part of its ongoing project on anti-corruption reforms in the EU accession process, supported by the German Federal Foreign Office (COSAC Reform Initiative). The visit took place at a critical political moment. Just days before the delegation’s arrival, Andriy Yermak, the powerful chief of staff to President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, resigned following investigative actions by Ukraine’s independent anti-corruption authorities linked to large-scale corruption cases.

The purpose of the trip was to assess the state of Ukraine’s anti-corruption and judicial reforms at the end of 2025, after a year marked by political tensions, sustained attacks on watchdog institutions, and growing concerns about reform backsliding during wartime. A key question guiding the visit was whether recent developments reflect a genuine recalibration of governance or merely symbolic responses to domestic and international pressure.

During meetings in Kyiv and Dnipro, the expert group held in-depth and candid discussions with representatives of civil society, journalists, diplomats, politicians, and senior officials from Ukraine’s core anti-corruption and judicial institutions. These included the National Anti-Corruption Bureau of Ukraine (NABU), the Specialized Anti-Corruption Prosecutor’s Office (SAPO), the High Anti-Corruption Court, and the judicial self-governing bodies. A central takeaway was that the corruption exposed by the “Midas Tapes” and scandals in the energy sector represent only a fraction of deeper, systemic problems. Other sectors, including defense and the judiciary, remain affected.

At the same time, many interlocutors assessed that Yermak’s departure has opened a genuine window of opportunity. It could allow for a departure from a governance model centered on a small circle of trusted individuals controlling key state functions—some of whom either participated in, or knowingly tolerated, large-scale corruption schemes. Whether this opportunity translates into lasting progress will depend not only on future appointments but, crucially, on structural reforms that protect independent institutions and reduce political interference.

Despite some cautiously positive signals, the reform process remains fragile. NABU, SAPO, and judicial oversight bodies continue to face pressure from unreformed actors, including the Prosecutor General’s Office, the State Bureau of Investigation, parts of the parliament, and the Supreme Court. Without reforms to these institutions, a credible fight against high-level corruption will remain elusive.

Overall, the visit reinforced cautious optimism. Developments such as the release of unlawfully detained anti-corruption investigators and concrete reform demands submitted by NABU and SAPO indicate potential momentum. Ukraine’s EU accession process remains the most important anchor for reform. To avoid losing valuable time, both Ukraine and the European Union must now act decisively to turn this moment into sustainable progress.