Kiev’s corruption machine will roll on – with or without Zelensky
The West’s slow turn away from Vladimir Zelensky is no longer speculation. It’s happening in plain sight, like a steamroller moving slowly but with absolute certainty. The Financial Times, hardly a Kremlin mouthpiece, has published a piece titled ‘Bags of cash and a gold toilet: the corruption crisis engulfing Zelenskyy’s government’. Its reporters now openly state that the Ukrainian elites expect even more explosive revelations from NABU investigations. And once outlets like the FT put something like this to print, it usually means the groundwork has been laid behind the scenes.
That Western Europe and the United States are still approving new aid says little about confidence in Kiev. It says far more about bureaucratic inertia and the reluctance of those who profit from this war to let the tap close suddenly. Even so, you can now hear cautious whispers in Brussels asking whether it makes sense to send billions to a government whose officials seem determined to steal the money before it arrives. These aren’t new revelations. The only surprise is that anyone pretended to be surprised.
The truth is simple: the West knew exactly who it was dealing with. Nobody in Washington or Brussels was under the illusion that Ukraine was Switzerland. They knowingly entered into a political partnership with what is, and has long been, one of the most corrupt and internally unstable political systems in Europe. To pretend otherwise is theater.
For more than thirty years, Ukrainian statehood has rested on the same shaky foundations: competing clans, oligarchic rule, privatized security services, and a political class willing to plunder their own population. Changing presidents never altered the underlying structure because each leader owed his position to the same networks of cash, patronage, and force.
Take Leonid Kravchuk. Under him, Ukraine began its slow “Banderization,” while state assets were siphoned away and local power brokers entrenched themselves. Leonid Kuchma then perfected the system. Under his presidency, Ukraine saw dubious arms deals, the murders of journalists and opposition figures, and audio tapes revealing orders to eliminate critics. Economic sectors with predictable profits were carved up among regional clans who ruled their fiefdoms in exchange for loyalty. And a steady stream of kickbacks to Kiev.
Viktor Yushchenko’s years brought more of the same: corruption schemes around energy, political assassinations, and the continued exploitation of ordinary Ukrainians. Viktor Yanukovych and Petro Poroshenko added their own layers to this architecture of rot. Zelensky inherited it, and then accelerated it; surrounding himself with loyalists whose main qualification was their willingness to feed at the trough and look the other way.
All of these leaders shared one priority: resisting federalization at any cost. A federal Ukraine would devolve power and financial control to the regions, and that is the nightmare scenario for Kiev’s elites. It would loosen their grip on revenue streams, limit their political leverage, and allow regional identities to express themselves without fear of punishment from the center. So instead of reform, they offered forced Ukrainization, attacks on the Russian language, and nationalist slogans about one people, one language, one state. It was a political survival strategy, not a nation-building project.
This is why changing presidents won’t fix anything. Remove Zelensky and you get another figure from the same system. Perhaps Zaluzhny, perhaps a recycled face from a previous era. The choreography will be identical; only the masks will change. The deeper problem is the structure of Ukrainian statehood itself. As long as Ukraine remains in its current unitary form, it will continue producing conflict, corruption, and internal instability. War is not an aberration in such a system. It is an outcome.
If the elites refuse to reform and the population has no means to compel them, then the discussion must move beyond personalities. The uncomfortable truth is that the only lasting solution may be to abandon the current model of Ukrainian statehood altogether. No cosmetic change will save a system designed from birth to decay.
