In the turbulent summer of 2025, Ukraine found itself at the center of a political storm that tested the resilience of its anti-corruption institutions, the resolve of its civil society, and the delicate balance of its relationship with the European Union. The crisis began in July, when the Verkhovna Rada, Ukraine’s parliament, passed draft law No. 12414, a controversial bill that would have significantly weakened the country’s National Anti-Corruption Bureau (NABU) and the Specialized Anti-Corruption Prosecutor’s Office (SAPO) by placing them under the direct authority of the Prosecutor General.
The rapid passage of the bill, signed into law by President Volodymyr Zelensky on July 22, 2025, sent shockwaves through Ukraine’s political landscape and reverberated across European capitals. According to reporting from EUROPP – European Politics and Policy, the move was met with immediate and sharp criticism from European Union officials, including the European Commissioner for Enlargement, Marta Kos, and ambassadors from G7 states. The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) also warned that the law could undermine foreign investment in Ukraine, particularly in the defense sector.
Domestically, the backlash was swift and widespread. Protests erupted in at least 27 locations across the country, with demonstrators—many of them young Ukrainians—taking to the streets in defiance of the new law. While the gatherings were often small, with fewer than 100 participants in many places, their significance was not lost on observers. As noted by Maryna Rabinovych and Kostiantyn Fedorenko in EUROPP, these youth-led protests “show the resilience of Ukraine’s civil society even during wartime and confirm that European integration remains high on the public agenda.”
The protests lasted about a week, ultimately compelling the government to reverse course. President Zelensky introduced a new bill to restore the independence of NABU and SAPO, which the parliament quickly passed. This rapid policy U-turn underscored the power of both internal mobilization and external pressure in shaping Ukraine’s reform trajectory. As the Ukrainian media highlighted, President Zelensky sought to mend fences with the student protesters by proposing benefits such as increased scholarships and special travel allowances for male students aged 18 to 22, as well as plans for two university entry campaigns.
Yet, the crisis exposed deeper vulnerabilities within Ukraine’s governance. Despite tangible progress in the fight against corruption during the first half of 2025—NABU initiated 370 new investigations, identified 115 suspects (including an acting Deputy Prime Minister and several high-level defense officials), and secured 62 convictions—the episode revealed just how fragile the rule of law remains. The swift and orchestrated passage of draft law No. 12414, originally intended to regulate pre-court procedures during wartime, highlighted the ongoing challenges of establishing a truly deliberative and pluralistic legislative environment in Ukraine.
According to EUROPP, the anti-corruption crisis demonstrated the necessity of maintaining strict rule-of-law standards as Ukraine pursues closer ties with the EU. The authors warned that “there should be no ‘lowering of the bar’ on fundamental rule of law standards,” emphasizing that EU conditionality must remain robust, consequential, and safeguarded against ad hoc political compromises.
However, the effectiveness of EU conditionality hinges not only on official pressure but also on broad societal support. The crisis illustrated that when EU demands align with the values and mobilization of Ukrainian society, they are more likely to produce meaningful reforms. As Olga Burlyuk and Natalia Shapovalova previously argued, EU conditionality works best as both an intergovernmental bargaining tool and a mechanism of societal mobilization.
Amid the legislative turmoil, another controversy erupted on August 22, 2025, when the Security Service of Ukraine (SBU) unveiled evidence alleging that Ruslan Mahamedrasulov, a top NABU official, and his father had maintained business and personal ties with Russian entities. According to the Kyiv Post, the SBU accused Mahamedrasulov and his father of trading hemp with a company in Russia’s Republic of Dagestan, even after the 2022 full-scale Russian invasion of Ukraine. The SBU’s press release stated, “The conclusions of the state forensic semantic and textual examination confirm that the interlocutors in the recording are talking specifically about trade with the Russian Republic of Dagestan.”
The SBU further alleged that Mahamedrasulov’s father had traveled to Russia in 2023 and maintained contact with Fedir Khrystenko, a Ukrainian lawmaker wanted for collaborating with Russia, as well as with representatives of Russian occupation administrations in temporarily occupied Ukrainian territories. Conversations reportedly included discussions about renewing weapon registrations under the laws of the so-called Donetsk People’s Republic (DPR), a Russian proxy state in eastern Ukraine.
Despite the gravity of these allegations, the SBU was careful to stress that the investigation “concerns only an individual employee of the Anti-Corruption Bureau and the facts of his cooperation with the aggressor country and in no way relates to the effective work of NABU as a state institution of Ukraine as a whole.” The SBU called for constructive cooperation to “cleanse [NABU] of pro-Russian influence and strengthen the independence of our state.”
The timing of these revelations was not lost on observers. The government had cited the case as justification for its earlier attempt to strip NABU and SAPO of their independence, a move that had sparked the very protests that forced a reversal. The heads of NABU and SAPO, facing mounting pressure and the threat of removal, urged the SBU to release evidence promptly. However, the SBU said it was withholding some details due to ongoing investigative procedures.
Amid these crises, questions about Ukraine’s European aspirations and the durability of its pro-EU consensus came to the fore. While a recent survey cited by EUROPP showed overwhelming support—90%—for EU membership, only 46% of Ukrainians expressed trust in the EU itself. The reasons for this ambivalence ranged from unmet expectations regarding military support to concerns about the EU’s perceived weakness or cultural policies. Political elites, including President Zelensky’s chief of staff Andrii Yermak and Batkivshchyna party leader Yuliia Tymoshenko, at times echoed Eurosceptic tropes, framing anti-corruption reforms as Western impositions rather than homegrown necessities.
Nevertheless, the July protests demonstrated that, at least in this instance, the public was not swayed by Eurosceptic rhetoric. The demand for independent anti-corruption institutions resonated with Ukrainians who saw such reforms as essential for their country’s future. Yet, as analysts warn, future reforms that affect broader public interests—such as those concerning farmers or small business owners—could provoke a stronger backlash, especially if the war’s end brings disappointment or if the EU is seen as dragging its feet on accession.
For the EU, the Ukrainian crisis offers a cautionary tale. Maintaining momentum on accession talks is crucial, but so is upholding rigorous rule-of-law standards to avoid importing unresolved crises, as seen with Hungary and Poland. Equally important is managing Ukrainian expectations: valor on the battlefield, as noted by EUROPP, “cannot replace reforms in government.”
Ukraine’s summer of anti-corruption turmoil has left indelible lessons for both Kyiv and Brussels. The resilience of Ukrainian civil society, the interplay of domestic and international actors, and the ongoing struggle for the rule of law will continue to shape the country’s European journey in the months and years ahead.
