Lawfare Daily: Insider’s View of Zelensky’s Anti-Corruption Fiasco

Summary

Summary of Lawfare Podcast Episode: "Insider’s View of Zelensky’s Anti-Corruption Fiasco"

Podcast Information:

• Title: The Lawfare Podcast
• Host/Author: The Lawfare Institute
• Episode: Lawfare Daily: Insider’s View of Zelensky’s Anti-Corruption Fiasco
• Release Date: August 14, 2025

---

Introduction

In this episode of The Lawfare Podcast, the host engages in a deep conversation with Anastasia Radiana, a Ukrainian lawmaker and head of the parliamentary committee on anti-corruption work, and Anastasiya Lopatyna, a Ukraine Fellow at Lawfare. The discussion centers around a controversial bill passed in the Ukrainian Parliament that significantly undermined the independence of the country’s anti-corruption institutions, NABU (National Anti-Corruption Bureau) and SAPO (Special Anti-Corruption Prosecutor's Office). The episode delves into the legislative process, motivations behind the bill, public reaction, and the broader implications for Ukraine’s fight against corruption.

---

Background: Establishment of Anti-Corruption Institutions in Ukraine

Anastasia Radiana provides a detailed overview of Ukraine’s anti-corruption framework, highlighting its inception post the 2014 Revolution of Dignity. She explains that prior to 2014, Ukraine lacked effective law enforcement bodies to tackle high-profile corruption. In response, new institutions were created with significant support from Western partners, particularly the United States and the European Union, to ensure their independence and efficacy.

“Back in 2014, we understood that there literally was no law enforcement institution in the country either capable or willing to investigate high profile corruption.”
— Anastasia Radiana, [06:19]

She emphasizes that the success of these institutions has been pivotal in securing European integration milestones, such as the visa-free regime with the European Union.

---

The Controversial Bill: Undermining NABU and SAPO

The crux of the episode revolves around a hastily introduced bill in the Ukrainian Parliament that altered the operational framework of NABU and SAPO. Anastasia Radiana recounts how the bill was introduced with minimal prior notice and lacked transparency, inserting amendments into an unrelated bill on a different matter without preceding public disclosure.

“The whole thing happened on Tuesday morning in such a way that... the bill was published... only minutes before the vote.”
— Anastasia Radiana, [04:01]

The bill significantly reduced the independence of the anti-corruption institutions by transferring decision-making powers to the Prosecutor General, a political appointee. This shift intended to subject high-profile corruption investigations to political oversight, effectively crippling the institutions' ability to function autonomously.

“This bill basically left anti corruption investigation subject to the whim or goodwill or absence of the roof of the Prosecutor General.”
— Anastasia Radiana, [10:10]

---

Parliamentary Process and Controversy

The rapid passage of the bill, garnering 263 votes—including 185 from the President’s party, "Servants of the People"—raised significant concerns about the legislative process and political interference. Anastasia Radiana highlights the unprecedented speed and lack of proper procedure, indicating a high level of political will behind the bill.

“There has to be a highest political will for that. No chance whatsoever that this just happens, by chance or because someone didn't understand what was going on.”
— Anastasia Radiana, [12:12]

Attempts to block the bill, including motions to suspend the Speaker of the Parliament and halt the vote, failed, underscoring the orchestrated nature of the bill’s passage.

---

Government’s Justification: Combating Russian Influence

The government, including President Zelenskyy, justified the bill by alleging that it was necessary to counter Russian influence over Ukrainian institutions. Anastasia Radiana disputes this claim, stating that the bill’s provisions do not address Russian influence and instead serve to politicize anti-corruption efforts.

“Nothing of this allows to combat any Russia's influence... Prosecutor General political appointee controls anti corruption investigations full stop.”
— Anastasia Radiana, [36:08]

She further dissects the lack of tangible evidence supporting claims of Russian meddling, pointing out inconsistencies in the State Security Service’s allegations.

---

Public Response: Mass Protests and Civil Society Outcry

The swift introduction and passage of the bill triggered the first mass protests in Ukraine since Russia's full-scale invasion in 2022. The public, particularly the younger generation who grew up witnessing the establishment of anti-corruption institutions, perceived the bill as a grave injustice and a betrayal of anti-corruption promises.

“Ukrainians are very, very sensitive to injustice. So I would not claim that people went specifically out of support for certain leaders of anti corruption institutions...”
— Anastasia Radiana, [35:47]

These protests underscored the populace’s commitment to maintaining transparent and independent governance structures, even amidst wartime unity sentiments.

---

Aftermath: Presidential U-Turn and Correcting Legislation

Facing sustained public pressure and protests, President Zelenskyy acknowledged the missteps associated with the bill's passage. He introduced a correcting bill, crafted in collaboration with leaders of NABU and SAPO, aiming to restore the institutions’ independence while incorporating certain oversight measures.

“We managed to obtain a copy of the committee decision and yeah, it was bad... it was basicly just not in the interest of independent investigation of high profile corruption cases.”
— Anastasia Radiana, [28:52]

While the correcting bill reinstated key aspects of NABU and SAPO’s autonomy, concerns remain regarding provisions that expand the Prosecutor General’s powers, such as the ability to appoint and dismiss prosecutors without regular procedures.

---

Ongoing Concerns and Future Implications

Anastasia Radiana warns that despite the correcting bill, the environment remains fraught with challenges. She points out that ongoing investigations against NABU detectives and the psychological pressure on them indicate that the situation is far from normalized.

“Nabu detectives are still in pre trial detention with allegations at least public parts of which does not seem to be well justified.”
— Anastasia Radiana, [49:59]

Moreover, Radiana critiques the broader lack of accountability from international partners, suggesting that delayed or lenient responses to Ukraine’s domestic issues may have emboldened the government to act with impunity.

“The government has acquired a history or experience of delaying on certain conditionalities and not facing immediate uncomfortable consequences.”
— Anastasia Radiana, [54:04]

---

Conclusion

This episode of The Lawfare Podcast provides an insider’s perspective on a pivotal moment in Ukraine’s anti-corruption landscape. Through the insights of Anastasia Radiana, listeners gain a comprehensive understanding of the legislative maneuvers that threatened to undermine independent governance structures, the subsequent civil backlash, and the fragile steps toward remediation. The episode underscores the delicate balance between political authority and institutional independence, highlighting the ongoing struggle to maintain integrity in Ukraine’s legal and political systems amid external and internal pressures.

---

Notable Quotes:

• “This bill basically left anti corruption investigation subject to the whim or goodwill or absence of the roof of the Prosecutor General.”
  — Anastasia Radiana, [10:10]

• “Ukrainians are very, very sensitive to injustice. So I would not claim that people went specifically out of support for certain leaders of anti corruption institutions...”
  — Anastasia Radiana, [35:47]

• “The government has acquired a history or experience of delaying on certain conditionalities and not facing immediate uncomfortable consequences.”
  — Anastasia Radiana, [54:04]

---

This comprehensive summary encapsulates the key discussions, insights, and conclusions presented in the podcast episode, providing a clear and engaging overview for those who have not listened to the original content.

Transcript

[Lawfare Host]

The following podcast contains advertising to access an ad free version of the Lawfare Podcast. Become a material supporter of [e-mail] lawfare that's patreon.com Lawfair also check out Lawfare's other podcast offerings, Rational Security Chatter, Lawfare, no Bull and the Aftermath.

[Darina]

Hi, I'm Darina, co founder of OpenPhone. My dad is a business owner and growing up I'll never forget his old ringtone. He made it as loud as it could go because he could not afford to miss a single customer call. That stuck with me when we started OpenPhone. Our mission was to help businesses not just stay in touch, but make every customer feel valued to no matter when they might call. OpenPhone gives your team business phone numbers to call and text customers, all through an app on your phone or computer. Your calls, messages and contacts live in one workspace so your team can stay fully aligned and reply faster. And with our AI agent answering 24. 7, you'll really never miss a customer. Over 60,000 businesses use OpenPhone. Try it now and get 20% off your first six [e-mail] tech and we can port your existing numbers over for free. OpenPhone no missed calls, no missed customers.

[Jerry]

Tired of your car insurance rate going up? Even with a clean driving record, you're not alone. That's why there's Jerry, your proactive insurance assistant. Jerry compares rates side by side from over 50 top insurers and helps you switch with ease. Jerry even tracks market rates and alerts you when it's best to shop number no spam calls, no hidden fees. Drivers who save with Jerry could save over $1,300 a year. Switch with confidence, download the Jerry app or visit Jerry AI Acast Today.

[Anastasia Radiana]

There are political voices who want exactly this preserve political influence over appointments of people and staffing institutions who are supposed to investigate politic. To me this is a clear conflict of interest and something to be avoided and prohibited at all costs.

[Anastasiya Lopatyna]

It's the lawfare podcast. I am Anastasiya Lopatyna, Ukraine Fellow at lawfare with a Ukrainian lawmaker, Anastasia Radiana.

[Anastasia Radiana]

Nothing of this allows to combat any Russia's influence imagined for real or whatsoever in anti corruption institutions. This is just a completely different story. Prosecutor General Political Appointee Controls anti corruption investigation Full stop.

[Anastasiya Lopatyna]

We spoke about the Ukrainian government's attack on the country's anti corruption agencies which led to the first mass protests in Ukraine since the beginning of Russia's full scale invasion in 2022. You're a member of the Ukrainian Parliament. And you're a part of Zelenskyy's party, servants of the people. And what's more, you're also the head of the parliamentary committee on anti corruption work. So all of that is to say that you were really in the middle of what we're about to discuss and sort of at the center of this scandal in a way. So for people who perhaps weren't following this, what happened is that the government pushed through the parliament very quickly, sort of in an unprecedentedly quickly way, a bill that would kill the dependents of two anti corruption agencies. You were one of the people who sort of raised the alarm about this bill early on. So can you begin by telling us how you first learned about this bill, its existence, what's in it, and how you sort of realized that it's dangerous?

[Anastasia Radiana]

So to be completely honest, there were rumors about a week ahead of the events that something is in the making. And frankly, I had doubts that that would happen in the Parliament because I actually underestimated the possibility to pass questionable legislation through the Parliament in such a quick like blitzkrieg manner. The whole thing happened on Tuesday. As of Monday evening, there hasn't even been a bill on the agenda was respective provisions. There wasn't even public information of a committee meeting planned to introduce this amendments. The whole thing happened on Tuesday morning in such a way that, well, first amendments were inserted into a bill that was on a completely different matter. Some members of the respective committee didn't know the committee meeting was happening. The text of the bill wasn't published on the parliamentary website, which is, which is an obligatory part of the procedure, procedure until about like 10 minutes or 20 minutes before the vote. However, we managed to obtain a copy of the committee decision and yeah, it was bad. It basically provided that special anti corruption prosecutor's office, which is part of independent anti corruption system of Ukraine, is not a independent institution anymore and has zero authority to take decisions in high profile corruption investigations. But all these decisions are passed to the Prosecutor General who is a political appointee. I can fairly say that the Prosecutor General in Ukraine is the least politically protected law enforcement official in the country. So it was obvious the piece of legislation is just not in the interest of independent investigation of high profile corruption cases.

[Anastasiya Lopatyna]

The Ukrainian anti corruption infrastructure, it's quite complex. There are several bodies. Can you give some context on what these bodies are, when they were created, and what their work has been like since then?

[Anastasia Radiana]

So the story began after the revolution of dignity which happened in 2013, 2014, when then President Yanukovych escaped the country and the scope of a corruption machine that has been organized by him and his cronies has been uncovered. 2014, this is the year when anti corruption efforts in Ukraine actually began. So in general, the whole history of anti corruption efforts in Ukraine, it is just 10 years old. Back in 2014, we understood that there literally was no law enforcement institution in the country either capable or willing to investigate high profile corruption. And the ways of all prosecutorial bodies had nothing to do with real law enforcement and delivering justice. So the decision has been taken as a state policy to just create new institutions from scratch, stop them with new people selected on open competitions, which hasn't been the case with law enforcement before. Give this institutions complete independence from this old rotten prosecutorial bodies and trust. And trust them with investigators investigating high profile corruption. And this is how there appeared national anti corruption bureau to investigate and special anti corruption prosecutor's office to prosecute. And then few years later, well, basically not even few, but in 2019 there appeared high anti corruption court to hear cases. And only since 2019 has this whole infrastructure been complete.

[Anastasiya Lopatyna]

And the Ukraine's Western partners played a huge role in establishing all of these bodies. Right. They put a lot of money, sent advisors and were kind of very hands on, involved, especially the United States. Right?

[Anastasia Radiana]

That is true because creation of anti corruption institution has been part of various framework of Ukraine's cooperation with international partners since 2014. For example, different components of either creation or independence of anti corruption institutions in different periods has been part of memorandums with international Monetary Funds and then law and guarantees with the United States and then visa liberalization action plan with European Union and then again International Monetary Fund, United States, European Union. So yes, it has been part of the framework of cooperation with international donors for a very long time.

[Anastasiya Lopatyna]

So to do another little overview, the creation of these agencies is seen in Ukraine as sort of one of the main results of the Euromadan or the revolution of dignity. In 2014, it's this major achievement. A lot of Ukraine's European and American aid has been tied directly to the success of these agencies and to the creation of these agencies.

[Anastasia Radiana]

Right.

[Anastasiya Lopatyna]

For example, Ukraine got its visa free regime with Europe, which, you know, I think it's fair to say was sort of revolutionary for the Ukrainian people in a way and for our opportunities in Europe specifically, because we established these agencies and they got off the ground. Would that be fair?

[Anastasia Radiana]

Yes, absolutely. That is right.

[Anastasiya Lopatyna]

So let's go back to the bill, the bill 12, 4, 14 again. And so the bill concerns NABU, the National Anti Corruption Bureau, and SAPO, the Special Anti corruption Prosecutor's Office. So just very quickly walk us through these amendments again in this bill. What were they trying to do and how were they affecting the work of these two bodies Now? Buen SAP.

[Anastasia Radiana]

So basically, first it is important to say that these two bodies, they operate together, one cannot effectively operate without the other, because any decision that might happen in the course of investigation is subject to consent from a prosecutor. So the law effectively said that the Prosecutor General, who previously had almost no authority over Naboo cases, according to this bill, received an opportunity to first look into the cases once again. Prosecutor General political appointee has a right to receive any information from investigation of the most sensitive cases, some of them related to political, allegedly political corruption. Second, the Prosecutor General received an opportunity to give mandatory assignments in the cases. To put it simpler, Prosecutor General received a right to tell anti corruption detectives what to do and therefore what not to do. And almost all serious decisions in the cases were according to this amendments, basically subject from consent, not by anti corruption prosecutors, but from the Prosecutor General, which in effect left anti corruption investigation subject to the whim or goodwill or absence of the roof of the Prosecutor General.

[Anastasiya Lopatyna]

So there is this very sort of bizarre last minute committee meeting on Tuesday morning, and then a few hours later, it gets on the Parliament's floor, this bill, and what happens? Can you take us into that sort of hour, hour and a half of the Parliament figuring out what's going on? I know you made a post on Facebook, sort of trying to tell people like, oh my God, this is happening. Everyone was scrambling to understand what was going on. Walk us through a little bit of your memories that day and how this even made it to the agenda.

[Anastasia Radiana]

So that's interesting because agenda is compiled by what is called a conciliatory council of representatives of the fractions represented in the Parliament. And normally most of the fractions would stand against inclusion into the agenda of any bill that the text of which has not been published in advance. In advance means 10 days before the event, but at least few days earlier. However, what's interesting in this specific case, to the best of my understanding, no fraction seriously objected to inclusion of the bill, which hasn't been made public before. For this to happen, there has to be a highest political will for that. No chance whatsoever that this just happens, you know, by chance or because someone didn't understand what was going on. So the bill made it into the agenda. There were few attempts on the floor to table a motion to temporary suspend speaker of the Parliament due to, due to this violation of rules of procedure of the Parliament, specifically failure to publish the bill and then the way just the agenda has been compiled and the fact that amendments appeared in a bill that wasn't a completely different matter in the first place. This motion was not supported. At the same time, you know, I've heard some of the colleagues claiming they, they haven't had an understanding that something was, something serious was happening in the Parliament. Now that that would be improbable, unrealistic explanation because I, frankly speaking, country member, when was the last time when the motion to temporary suspense a speaker has been tabled and voted on. There were speeches in the Parliament from myself, from number of other colleagues. We even attempted to do something that is the last resort probably of political action in the Parliament and that is to block the Tribune like to block the possibility to proceed with the vote on this bill. So absolutely impossible for someone not to notice that something was happening and something was very much not okay.

[Anastasiya Lopatyna]

263 lawmakers vote for this bill in the end. And this is all, as we've said, like a matter of an hour after these amendments, sort of out of thin air appear. And 185 of those lawmakers are your colleagues from your party, from the President's party, servants of the people. How do you explain that? Why did they do it? And I understand that this is a very multifaceted question because there is a lot of different parties. So can you walk us through the various explanations that there might be for what happened?

[Anastasia Radiana]

Well, I can present the explanations that colleagues came up with. At the same time, I think I'm just not the right person to provide this explanation because I myself did not vote for this bill and tried everything basically possible on the floor in the Parliament to explain to colleagues that provisions in question were very dangerous and prevent them from being voted. The explanation that I've heard from colleagues ranged from failure to understand the nature of the bill to an attempt to claim that the bill wasn't that bad because anti corruption institutions were not shut down. Frankly speaking, for me this was one of the most ridiculous explanations. And this explanation, it actually persisted through various communication channels for a few days afterwards. Various speakers tried to claim that there's no problem. Anti corruption institutions did not cease to exist.

[Anastasiya Lopatyna]

Zelensky himself said that that was his argument for several days.

[Anastasia Radiana]

Well, again, the fact that there is a building on which there is a nameplate saying is an anti corruption institution and there are people working in this building, but the institution does not have any powers. To me, this is not preserving anti corruption institution. That is basically obvious. And according to the bill that was voted special anti corruption prosecutor's office was turned into exactly this. A building was a nameplate with people in there, but without real powers to basically do independent investigations of high profile corruption. At the same time, coming back to explanations that colleagues came up with, it is with sadness that I have to say some of the colleagues actually thought that, well first they knew what they were voting for and they supported the idea that prosecutor General political appointee should be in more control over this investigations. And sadly enough, quite a number of colleagues actually applauded to the speech on the floor claiming that foreign experts and foreign countries had allegedly too much influence over anti corruption institutions.

[Anastasiya Lopatyna]

Right, I want to actually stop on that because it's too quite absurd, if I may say that. So this argument about the foreign influence sort of lies in this fact that in these bodies there are certain commissions that take part in choosing the director. Correct me if I'm wrong on any of these things, of course, but there are various independent commissions that select the director of the agency or something like that. And on those commissions there's usually an equal amount of Ukrainian representatives and international independent experts who have no stake in choosing any particular person to be the director because they're not from Ukraine, they don't have any political stake here. And so the idea is that that helps choose the most independent and solid person possible. And so some lawmakers and some politicians think that that foreign interference, that it's this sort of neocolonial thing that's happening, that Europe and the US have too much influence on the work of Ukrainian anti corruption agencies, which is the exact same argument that Putin has used before. Moreover, he's talked about this, and this is the extremely absurd part of it all, in one of the speeches that he gave before on the day that he launched his full scale invasion of Ukraine, that big speech full of ahistorical facts and ramblings about militarization or whatnot. He actually spoke about NABOO and SAPO and he said that their run by these western new colonial people who spread influence. And so some of these lawmakers were using the exact same argument that Putin does, which is just very interesting. And on top of that, there has been reporting that dozens of these lawmakers that voted for these provisions were themselves subject to investigations by these agencies. Right. So clear conflict of interest.

[Anastasia Radiana]

So you summed it all up perfectly. That's exactly what happened. All correct. I don't think we have exact information as to the number of MPs who are themselves subject to investigation. You're right, I may be overseas, not without those who don't have notifications of suspicion served. But yeah, there definitely are people who voted in a situation of conflict of interest. Although again, given the fact that there were 263 votes in favor, if you deduct those who might have acted in the conflict of interest, that would still be enough to have the law adopted. Sadly. And going back to this argument of foreign interference, now, we've been dealing with this argument since probably 2016. I've been working in civil society then basically advocating for involvement of this international experts and selection commissions for leadership of independent institutions, specifically in order to guarantee that this leadership is independent. Because we walked down the path of various options for having this independent commission and nothing other than participation of international experts nominated by international partners, nothing other than that worked. Every time we, for example, tried to introduce participation of civil society, the government would come up with, I'm sorry to say, but just go and go NGOs and try to introduce dependent people through this, through this gap and it just didn't work. So for me, every time I hear this pseudo sovereignty concern, what I actually hear is that there are political voices who want exactly this preserve political influence over appointment of people and staffing institutions who are supposed to investigate politicians. To me this is a clear conflict of interest and something to be avoided and prohibited at all costs.

[Anastasiya Lopatyna]

There has been some reporting in the Ukrainian media about the fact that many lawmakers were asked by representatives of the President's office and some were pressured and there was this certain pressure campaign around this bill and there were these phrases like your vote on this bill will determine to the President if you're really on his side or something like that. Are you aware of any such instances? Have you heard of this?

[Anastasia Radiana]

What I can say as a fact that I myself was never approached was anything like this. I wasn't pressured, I wasn't asked to vote for this bill partially I think, because, well, my position has been clear through my six years of the Parliament. I've never voted and never supported anything that would limit opportunities for anti corruption institutions. At the same time, just this whole way in which this happens, I mean, introducing amendments. Well, first of all, let's say that, let's also mention that that Tuesday was an extraordinary session of the Parliament called for a week earlier. And then this amendments were introduced in the morning, voted around noon and forwarded to presidential administration for Mr. President to sign it in the afternoon and this very evening the bill was published and came into effect the next day on Thursday. This is unprecedented. And as much as one would want to present this as an unfortunate sequence of events, the sequence of events would just. I can't imagine this being possible without active participation of the presidential administration. That just impossible. Impossible. Especially the fact that the bill was published on the same day at the same time. I think it's important to also say it here that it is also very important that the correcting bill has been submitted by Mr. President. Because I can only speculate, but I'll allow myself the speculation. Without the presidential bill, the problem would not have been solved and we would still be in a discussion as to how to fix this. So presidential bill was also instrumental in fixing the problem.

[Anastasiya Lopatyna]

We'll unpack that a little bit later. But I wanted to ask a very important question here, which is, so how did the government sell this? What was the official reason for trying to do this? How did the government explain it?

[Anastasia Radiana]

You mean the necessity to have this amendment?

[Anastasiya Lopatyna]

Yes, the initial bill. Yeah. What was the official version of what happened?

[Anastasia Radiana]

Well, frankly speaking, I cannot remember and I don't think there has been a clear explanation Campaign.

[Anastasiya Lopatyna]

Yeah, that's part of the problem, the lack of communication. Right.

[Anastasia Radiana]

Laying down and explaining what is there in this bill and why is this needed. I think what is also worth noting is that this bill did not happen on its own in a way. Why? Because Monday before the Tuesday on which everything happened, there were a number of searches and investigative activities conducted by Security Service and also State broke investigations against detectives of Anti Corruption Bureau. I'm sad to say that some of them were physically abused during this investigative activities. When I say physically abused, unfortunately what I mean is that they were beaten, as simple as this, rather harshly and severely. Some of them were sort of notification of suspicion and state treason. Some of them were source notification of suspicion or following traffic accidents that happened in various years. One of those happened in 2021. So this all happened at the same day and the next day the parliament basically adopted the decision that has been adopted. This whole thing, as much as you try as one might try to see it otherwise, just does not look as anything else than coordinated campaign. And one more thing here, the case that has been presented by State Security Service as alleged state treason on behalf of one of Nabo detectives, it actually does not stand any scrutiny as the State Security Service of Ukraine, they published what they claimed was wire taping of phone conversations of the the person who was charged was state treason and they explained that he allegedly was trying to sell drugs to Dagestan, which is part of Russia. However, when you actually listen to the materials that SBU itself published, so everyone listened to it, anything, anything about drugs and then it's clearly not Dagestan, but Uzbekistan. However, the person charged on the pretext of this, of this phone conversations, he is still in pretrial detention. And unfortunately, and this is also not a coincidence, he was effectively robbed of a possibility to appeal this detention because appeals hearing has been scheduled for the end of August when he was almost served all of the or considerable parts of the periods of his pre trial detention as ruled by first instance court. And this is again also not a coincidence in my humble opinion.

[Lawfare Host]

Delete Me makes it quick, easy and safe to remove your personal data online. At a time when surveillance and data breaches are common enough to make everyone vulnerable, data brokers make a profit off your data. It's a commodity. Anyone on the web can buy private details about you. Your name, contact information, Social Security number, home address, even information about your family members. It can all be compiled by data brokers and sold online. And that can lead to identity theft, phishing attempt, and harassment. But now you can protect your privacy with Delete Me. I've said it before and I'll say it again. I have been using Delete Me since before they were ever an advertiser. With Lawfare, I have an active online presence. I'm out there. I make arguments that piss people off and sometimes there can be blowback for that. And my privacy really is important to me. I don't want people mucking around in my personality beyond that which I choose to make public. I've been a victim of identity theft. I've been harassed. I've never been doxxed. But you know, I expect it sometime. And if you haven't, you probably know someone who has. Delete Me can help. So take control of your data and keep your private life private by signing up for Delete Me now at a special discount for Lawfare listeners. Get 20% off your Delete Me plan when you go to JoinDeleteMe.comLawfare20 and use the promo code Lawfare20 at checkout. The only way to get 20% off is to go to JoinDeleteMe.com Lawfare20 and enter code Lawfare20 at checkout. That's join DeleteMe.com Lawfare20 code Lawfare20 BetterHelp.

[Anastasia Radiana]

Online Therapy bought this 30 second ad to remind you right now, wherever you are, to unclench your jaw. Relax your shoulders. Take a deep breath. Breath in and out feels better, right? That's 15 seconds of self care. Imagine what you could do with more visit betterhelp.com randompodcast for 10% off your first month of therapy. No pressure, just help. But for now, just relax.

[Jerry]

Why Choose a Sleep Number Smart Bed.

[Anastasia Radiana]

Can I make my site softer?

[Anastasiya Lopatyna]

Can I make my site firmer?

[Lawfare Host]

Can we sleep cooler?

[Jerry]

Sleep Number does that cools up to eight times faster and lets you choose your ideal comfort on either side. Your Sleep Number setting It's the Sleep Number biggest sale of the year. All beds on sale up to 50% off the limited edition smart bed plus free home delivery with the purchase of any smart bed ends Monday. All Sleep number Smart beds offer temperature solutions for your best sleep. Check it out at a Sleep number store or sleepnumber.com today. Business software is expensive and when you buy software from a lot of different companies, it's not only expensive, it gets confusing. Slow to use, hard to integrate. Odoo solves that because all Odoo software is connected on a single affordable platform. Save money without missing out on the features you need. Odoo has no hidden costs and no limit on features or data. Odoo has over 60 apps available for any needs your business might have, all at no additional charge. Everything from websites and sales to inventory and accounting all linked in talking to each other. Check out odoohdoo.com that's o-com.

[Anastasiya Lopatyna]

Right? It's totally worth mentioning, yes, that this bill wasn't an isolated incident, but it seemed like the most recent and the most radical step because as you've said, there were mass searches across NABU and SAPO offices and there was a smear campaign in the media that some have pointed out allegations of certain staffers at naboo, which you just brought up working for Russia and then this bill. So by the time the bill was pushed through the parliament, it was sort of very clear to the civil society what was happening. And several hours later people start protesting and right near the President's office. And these are the first mass protests since the beginning of Russia's full scale invasion, since 2022, which I think is extremely significant. Right?

[Anastasia Radiana]

Absolutely.

[Anastasiya Lopatyna]

We both know that protesting is something of a national sport for us. For Ukrainians, people protest all the time about various issues. And I mean it's interesting because it's not like we haven't had any scandals worth protesting about in three years. There were a lot of of mass corruption schemes that were uncovered, various issues with Zelensky's power grabs and the powers of Yarmuck and his chief of staff. But people didn't protest it and sort of gave the benefit of the doubt to the government that this is wartime, we have to stay united. Why do you think this was the issue that brought a bunch of young people who were kids when these agencies were created? And I'm a part of that generation, this sort of post Maidan generation. Why did it take this issue, this very sort of technical, bureaucratic, hard to understand thing, to make people protest?

[Anastasia Radiana]

I think you already started to provide answer to this question when you said that previously a number of scandals were uncovered. So when the government started going against those very institutions who uncovered alleged corruption or misuse of power and basically different domains, this was perceived by people as injustice. And Ukrainians are very, very sensitive to injustice. So I would not claim that people went specifically out of support for certain leaders of anti corruption institutions. No, but they perceived that what was happening was unjust, that what was happening was against the promise of fighting corruption through independent institutions. And this is just not something young Ukrainians are ready to accept.

[Anastasiya Lopatyna]

And I think the role of Ukraine's European integration is also very important. Right. Because the success of these agencies is to this day directly tied to, to Ukraine's European bid. And so, you know, when the bill came out, everyone was basically saying like, I guess we could kiss EU goodbye now. And I think that also played a role, right?

[Anastasia Radiana]

That's part of the story, yes. But I would still say that the feeling of injustice was a major motivator behind the protest.

[Anastasiya Lopatyna]

So the official line from Zelenskyy and other officials around him in the days after the bill and the protest was that Nabu and SAPO have to work and they will continue to work. But the bill was needed to counter Russian influence. And so this argument of Russian influence was what they landed on eventually. Is there any evidence that exists that there is considerable or problematic amount of Russian influence on Nabu and SAP? And also that the government was genuinely trying to address that issue first?

[Anastasia Radiana]

I'm not sure it was Mr. President himself who claimed that the bill was necessary. This specific bill that was voted was necessary to combat Russia's aggression. I don't think it has been his message, but you're right that it has been voiced by various speakers and various politicians. This is just not true because again, the bill was about subjecting anti corruption institutions to the Prosecutor General. Nothing of this allows to combat any Russia's influence, imagined or real or whatsoever, in anti corruption institutions. This is just a completely different story. Prosecutor General, political appointee controls anti corruption investigations full stop. It has nothing to do whatsoever with what State Security Service claimed to uncover Russia's influence. And then sadly, we are still waiting for State Security Service to produce more serious evidence as to Russia's influence on anti corruption institutions. Because the evidence they have produced so far, the wire taping that I have referred to earlier, well, this just does not stand any scrutiny.

[Anastasiya Lopatyna]

A few points in this as well. I've read the amendments and the words Russian and influence aren't even mentioned in the text.

[Anastasia Radiana]

So there is that of the initial bill. Absolutely right, yes.

[Anastasiya Lopatyna]

The initial bill that was passed and then another third or fourth absurd part of this whole story is that there are still dozens of pro Russian and Russian linked lawmakers in the Ukrainian parliament whose party was banned, but they still retained their mandates for some interesting reason that we're yet to understand. And all of these pro Russian lawmakers whose actual self proclaimed job is to push Russian interests in Ukraine, that's sort of why they're there, right? According to my speculation, they all voted for this bill. So the pro Russian lawmakers voted for the bill whose alleged goal is to clear the part of the Ukrainian government and these agencies of Russian influence. I loved how some people in the civil society, they would say who is this explanation for? Who do they think is going to believe this argument? Because nobody did. And so then people started of course asking the question of okay, so that what's the real reason? And various in depth investigations in the media and various reporting showed that Naboo and Saab were very actively investigating people in the President in Volodymyr Zelenskyy's immediate circle, some former officials of the President's office and some current ones as well. And so that was the supposed reason. You don't even need the reporting. There is a case that's out in the open, read the former Deputy Prime Minister of Ukraine, Chernyshev, who was charged with corruption more than a month ago before this whole scandal. Supposedly that was the last drop. Right. Chernyshev is allegedly a close friend of Zelenskyy and family friend. So that's the explanation that the Ukrainian civil society sort of understands. What do you think about it?

[Anastasia Radiana]

So this is definitely an explanation that some reputable investigative journalists come up with. Now I'm of course not in a position to comment on investigative activities of anti corruption institutions. None of that is out there in the open, apart from notification of suspicion to former Minister for National Unity at the Same time, what I can refer to is a press conference by leaders of, by heads of anti corruption institutions that they gave on the very day when this questionable, to say the least bill was first adopted. And in this press conference, they indeed say that they attribute this whole attack anti corruption institutions. And by attack they meant searches and notification of suspicions and the bill and reviving traffic accident cases back from 2024. So they attributed it to some sensitive cases that were in the process of investigation in these institutions.

[Anastasiya Lopatyna]

So people protest for days, and on the first day, Zelenskyy signs the bill, even though, you know, even after hours of protest, Zelenskyy signs the bill at midnight. He sort of is quiet for several hours. There is a very short statement that's published in the middle of the night after it, and then people keep protesting. The crowd is like three times bigger. The next day, the day after it's published, there's, you know, and now there are protests in more than 60 in cities, I think, so truly countrywide demonstrations. And several days later, Zelenskyy ultimately makes a U turn. And he says, okay, there should have been more dialogue. He says something that I think is quite funny. He says, well, I'm focused on the war, so this, I'm putting words in his mouth, but he was basically making the argument that it slipped his attention, that it happened without his notice and there should have been more dialogue. And he reaches out to Nabu and sapo, they have a conversation, other lawmakers, other, sorry, law enforcement agencies, not lawmakers. And he says that he will present a new bill that's going to fix everything. And so that ultimately happens, the President suggests a new bill that reverses almost everything that was in the initial bill. What happened there, to your knowledge, like that period between the initial bill and the new bill being passed, what are those conversations that you're hearing and I'm interested in, since you're a part of the Parliament, I'm really curious about what your colleagues are saying. And I know that that must have been a very difficult period for them because the entire civil society turned on them. And the public comments that people were making about these lawmakers, it was truly comparable to Yanukovych times, right? Like publishing full lists of people who voted for it and just reputations were destroyed on that day. So what were the conversations and the emotions in that period between the two bills?

[Anastasia Radiana]

First, to the best of my recollection, Mr. President announced this correcting bill on Wednesday afternoon. So the day after the bill and on Thursday, the bill was already registered in the Parliament. So that happened pretty quickly. And this also happened after Mr. President had a meeting with leaders of anti corruption institutions. As to the mood in the Parliament. Now, it is no secret, at least at this moment already that some rather dramatic, dramatic situations happened when younger family members like children or grandchildren of, of lawmakers were very angry, to put it diplomatically, with the vote of, of some of the MPs. So that has been rather dramatic for some on a personal and family level. At the same time, it is also not a secret because a conversation and conversations in one of the WhatsApp chat of the fraction has been leaked a few days ago. So it's no secret that some of the colleagues would still support or stand behind their previous vote and were not very happy with this, with what you called a U turn. And this is exactly why I'm saying that without the presidential bill the situation had very considerable and sad chance of of not having been corrected by now.

[Anastasiya Lopatyna]

There was also reporting that suggested that many lawmakers were considering to just quit their jobs and some have in a very dramatic fashion. Right. That they sort of were used that the government, the President's office asked them to vote on this and now their reputation is destroyed and they didn't even know what they were doing. So they're never voting on anything again and just goodbye, I'm out. So there was really worry that, that when this new bill was presented that now the President's office had to summon hundreds of these people to vote and reverse what they just did again. And that's pretty awkward obviously to say the least. But ultimately it passes and again in a very interesting fashion because more people vote for it than voted for that initial bill. It was the sort of unanimous vote from everyone but. So let's talk about what's in this new bill that the President created in cooperation with the leaders of NABU and sapo. Does it fix the problem for nabo?

[Anastasia Radiana]

It's ensopo. Yes it does. It is true that the bill was designed with active participation of leaders of anti corruption institutions. That is true. So there has been a lot of debate as to some provisions of the bill saying that those NABO detectives who have family on occupied territories are to undergo polygraph and that SBU Security Service of Ukraine has powers to look into some intelligence related aspects of NABU and SAPOR work. I understand why these provisions may seem awkward. At the same time, it is not a situation as if this provision introduce any additional opportunities to pressure anti corruption Bureau because anti corruption institutions have their own polygraph and have had it for years. And State Security Service has powers to look into exact things that the bill says they should look into and has had this powers for years as well. So it is not as if something new and revolutionary has been introduced in terms of of controlling the work of anti corruption institutions.

[Anastasiya Lopatyna]

So essentially everything about the anti corruption agencies that was passed was ultimately sort of revised and put back into the status quo that we had before. But there are some provisions about the general prosecutor that remained and people paid less attention to. Right. Which are still quite worrisome.

[Anastasia Radiana]

Yes, there are provisions that have nothing to do with anti corruption institutions and even with anti corruption prosecutors, but that was still allow Prosecutor General to. I'll simplify the matter, but basically to dismiss and to appoint prosecutors without regular procedures. Yes, this is, this is a provision that worried some of the experts and it is my expectation that this provision will still be questioned in the parliament and legislative initiatives to reverse this as well will be.

[Anastasiya Lopatyna]

TABLE yeah, it's probably worth explaining for a Western and American audience that the general prosecutor in Ukraine historically has been the sort of notorious figure like at the times of Yanukovych and before they were always completely dependent on the president kind of people, political appointees who would sort of carry out the dirty work of the regime. If we're talking about Yanukovych times. So that's why a lot of civil society and other experts are worrying that we can't keep expanding the powers of the general prosecutor because that office has a really bad history and it's better when those powers are in check. I want to talk about some of the consequences of this whole thing. Right. Because the new bill was passed that went up back to normal kind of sort of. But it feels like there must be some sort of. Like there is some aftertaste. Right. Do you think there will be any long term consequences for Zelenskyy and his team domestically and internationally? I think those are two different parts of the equation.

[Anastasia Radiana]

First, I would not agree with the statement that everything is back to normal. Why? Because again, Nabu detectives are still in pre trial detention with allegations at least public parts of which does not seem to be well justified. However, people are basically in prison in a very serious conditions. And I would even go as far as to say that these conditions are part of the general atmosphere of psychological pressure on. On detectives. So in this regard it is not back to normal. It is not back to normal and I would not, sadly, I would not be very much surprised if additional notifications of suspicion was likewise questionable or not very strong explanations are to follow in coming months. So that's very important to keep in the focus as to consequences. Now, it is no secret because this has, this has already sounded a number of public statements or comments from representatives of a number of international partners that sadly, this whole ordeal, it influenced trust for Ukraine and the task of Ukraine now. And the task of the government is to do everything possible and frankly, everything impossible as well to revive this trust and to prove its good intent. The good thing here is that some steps were made by the government already, like appointment of the head of another law enforcement institution, Bureau of Economic Investigations. Now this, this person has won an open competition with international experts. However, previous government sadly basically refused to proceed with an appointment which contradicts the law, but still the government refused. Last week, the new government made a lawful decision to proceed with an appointment. And this of course contributes to certain extent to the restoration of trust. However, my feeling is that much more needs to be done in order to fully restore this trust.

[Anastasiya Lopatyna]

Before we wrap up, I think we should connected to again, sort of to the American audience and the American Trump reality. Some people in Ukraine have stipulated that the timing of the scandal is connected to the fact that the United States used to be very invested in everything that we just talked about. Right. Like the State Department and the embassy, they played a very important role in sort of keeping watch on Ukraine's reform progress, pressuring the Ukrainian governments when needed. And now, to say the least, they don't care. The Trump administration couldn't care less probably about Ukraine's domestic politics. Right. And then on the European Union side, they're our partners. They're helping us survive. And so they've also been sort of feeling very awkward about pointing our faults to us. Right. And I think it's important to point out that this has worried the Ukrainian civilization society, the Ukrainian people and sort of corruption watchdogs. They don't like that the Ukrainian civil society wants the west to keep a close watch on their foreign progress. But anyway, do you agree, do you think that there is a role that the US could play here that it's currently not playing? And so there is perhaps this sort of feeling of impunity that we can do this quickly, rush through this in a matter of hours, and the allies don't care. Europe, Europe is scared of saying anything so we can just get away with it.

[Anastasia Radiana]

I would agree that in past maybe half a year, eight months leading to this notorious Tuesday when the bill attacking anti corruption institutions has been passed, the government hasn't quite delivered in time a number of obligations that the government itself signed under and stuck as a commitment, and this did not generate very serious consequences for the government. Now, whether the fact that partners decided not to react in a harsh way is stronger, justified or not, this is a separate discussion. But in general it is true that the government has acquired a history or experience of delaying on certain conditionalities and not facing immediate uncomfortable consequences. And for some vested interests, this of course sadly contributed to the feeling of impunity and to the feeling of window of opportunities to do bad things and get away with this.

[Anastasiya Lopatyna]

Yes, Anastasia, thank you. This was great. I hope you will come back on our podcast again.

[Anastasia Radiana]

Thank you.

[Anastasiya Lopatyna]

The LoveFair podcast is produced in cooperation with the Brookings Institution. You can get ad free versions of this and other Love Fair podcasts by becoming a LoveFair material supporter through our website lovefairmedia.org support. You will also get access to special events and other content available only to our supporters. Please rate and review us wherever you get your podcasts. Look out for our other shows including Rational Security, Allies, the Aftermath and Escalation. Our latest Love Represents podcast series about the war in Ukraine. Check out our written [e-mail] the podcast is edited by Genpatia and our audio engineer. This episode was Goat Rodeo. Our theme song is from Alibi Music. As always, thank you for listening.

[Lawfare Host]

If you work as a manufacturing facilities engineer, installing a new piece of equipment can be as complex as the machinery itself. From prep work to alignment and testing, it's your team's job to put it all together. That's why it's good to have Grainger on your side. With industrial grade products and next day delivery, Grainger helps ensure you have everything you need close at hand through every step of the installation. Call 1-800-GRAINGER clickgrainger.com or just stop by Grainger for the ones who get it done.