Governance Under Siege: Corruption and the Zelensky Presidency – How Internal Vulnerabilities Are Testing Ukraine’s Political Resilience at a Critical Moment of the War

“States do not falter first on the front line, but within their own institutions.”

Analytical Preamble

As Ukraine wages the most important war in its modern history, the integrity of its governance system has become a decisive factor for the survival of the state. President Volodymyr Zelensky—once the uncontested symbol of national resistance—now faces mounting pressure not only from the battlefield but also from within his own institutions. Major corruption scandals in the energy sector, defense procurement and public administration are revealing structural vulnerabilities that risk undermining both domestic credibility and Western support.

The convergence of wartime governance, institutional fatigue and challenges to constitutional legitimacy places the Ukrainian presidency under unprecedented tension. Understanding these dynamics is essential for assessing the evolution of Ukraine’s political resilience in 2025 and beyond.

I. The Political–Institutional Context of the Zelensky Presidency

During more than six years in office, Zelensky’s presidency has undergone a paradoxical transformation: from the promise of a reformist project centered on anti-corruption, to the reality of a state forced to operate under the pressure of total war. The administration’s initial anti-corruption measures—strengthening NABU[2], reinforcing the Specialized Anti-Corruption Prosecutor’s Office, and the wave of dismissals in 2020–2021—seemed to mark the beginning of a new phase of public accountability.

The war, however, has radically reshaped Ukraine’s power architecture. Under martial law, presidential prerogatives expanded, control over Parliament tightened, and the activity of oversight institutions became far more dependent on the executive center. In parallel, the political environment homogenized, the opposition was reduced to a marginal role, and the media was integrated into a unified strategic-communication framework justified by security imperatives.

This context generated two major consequences:

• Rapid administrative efficiency during the first months of the war, when immediate and centralized decisions were essential;
• Medium-term systemic vulnerability, caused by the weakening of democratic oversight mechanisms and by the reactivation of interest networks in less supervised areas.

In the absence of a Parliament able to exercise effective oversight and a fully autonomous press, decision-making responsibility increasingly concentrated at the presidential level. This transformed Zelensky’s mandate into both a pillar of political stability and a potential “single point of failure” should things spiral out of control.

The overlap between the necessity of strong presidential leadership in wartime and the weakening of institutional counterweights became one of the key factors behind the major corruption scandals that erupted between 2023 and 2025.

II. Major Corruption Scandals (2023–2025): Nature, Actors and Implications

Since the start of the Russian invasion, Ukraine has sought to demonstrate to Western partners that it remains committed to reforms despite the military pressure. Yet between 2023 and 2025, a series of scandals revealed deep structural fragilities. These were not isolated incidents but simultaneous dysfunctions across three critical sectors: energy, defense procurement[3] and military recruitment.

1. Energoatom and “Operation Midas” – The Architecture of Systemic Corruption

The scandal in the energy sector—described by Western media as possibly “the largest Ukrainian political scandal of the wartime period”—targeted contracts worth hundreds of millions of dollars managed by Energoatom[4], the national nuclear energy company. Investigators uncovered an extensive scheme involving illegal commissions, inflated contracts and intermediary firms, some reportedly connected to government-adjacent circles.

The sensitivity of the case stems from three factors:

• the nuclear sector is strategic for Ukraine’s energy security and system stability;
• infrastructure modernization depends on Western funding;
• fthe political reverberations reach circles close to the presidential administration, increasing the perception of vulnerability at the top.

For the first time during the war, anti-corruption institutions opened a case of this magnitude, with the potential to directly affect President Zelensky’s public standing.

2. Defense Procurement[5] – Troop Supplies, Equipment and Logistics

In 2023, a scandal erupted over massive overpricing of food supplies for the army—price differences two or three times above market value. Although initially labeled “administrative errors,” NABU investigations and public pressure confirmed the existence of large-scale fraud.

This was followed by additional cases involving the procurement of uniforms, fuel and non-lethal equipment. The political consequence was significant: the Minister of Defence resigned and was replaced by a figure perceived as a technocrat, in an effort to restore Western confidence.

That such abuses occurred while the Ukrainian army was fighting for survival triggered a strong public reaction and turned defense-sector corruption into a national moral test.

3. Military Recruitment[6] – Mass Dismissal of Regional Recruitment Chiefs

In the summer of 2023, Zelensky ordered the dismissal of all regional military recruitment chiefs after journalistic investigations and official inquiries revealed a nationwide system of bribery for obtaining medical exemptions or illegal exit from the country.

The decision had strong symbolic impact: the presidency acknowledged the problem and took radical action. At the same time, it exposed a deeper issue—Ukraine’s mobilization system, a cornerstone of wartime resilience, was severely penetrated by corruption.

In a war of attrition where the ability to mobilize manpower is decisive, the weakening of the recruitment system is not just an administrative problem but a strategic vulnerability.

4. Pressure on Anti-Corruption Institutions

Paradoxically, even as major corruption cases advanced, signs emerged of political attempts to limit the autonomy of anti-corruption institutions—particularly NABU and SAPO. Certain legislative proposals and controversial appointments were interpreted as efforts to control or curb the momentum of these bodies.

The European Union reacted swiftly: some financial tranches were temporarily delayed or conditioned on guarantees regarding institutional independence. Brussels’ message was explicit: Ukraine cannot pursue EU integration without strong safeguards for anti-corruption mechanisms.

5. Overall Consequences: A Crisis of Integrity Amid War

The three affected sectors—energy, defense and military recruitment—are not peripheral areas but fundamental pillars of the wartime state. The fact that corruption scandals concentrated exactly here signals structural vulnerability with direct impact on:

• internal morale,
• public trust in leadership,
• international credibility,
• the EU accession process,
• the ability to manage a prolonged conflict.

These scandals have become integral to how the Zelensky presidency is assessed both inside Ukraine and in Western capitals. They are not merely administrative episodes; they call into question the very architecture of state power, affecting the centrality of the presidency at a critical moment.

III. Impact on the Zelensky Presidency: Legitimacy, Mandate and the Constitutional Dilemma

The corruption crisis is not limited to financial losses or administrative dysfunctions; it has direct effects on the president’s political legitimacy and on the architecture of power in Ukraine.

1. Erosion of Moral and Political Capital

During the first 12 months of the war, Zelensky accumulated exceptional moral capital, becoming—both domestically and internationally—the symbolic figure of resistance against Russian aggression. Internally, this translated into high levels of trust and the temporary suspension of political disputes.

As the war dragged on and corruption scandals surfaced, this aura gradually eroded. Zelensky remains the most popular leader, but he is no longer the uncontested, near-unanimous figure of the war’s initial phase[7]. In some regions and social segments, early enthusiasm has shifted toward fatigue, skepticism and suspicion.

2. The Dilemma of the Extended Presidential Mandate

One of the most sensitive issues concerns the presidential mandate[8]. The Constitution of Ukraine stipulates a fixed term and the regular organization of elections, but martial law suspends the electoral process. Zelensky therefore remains in office through constitutional continuity, not through democratic revalidation.

This situation creates tension between:

• legal legitimacy (the mandate continues lawfully);
• perceived democratic legitimacy (the absence of electoral reconfirmation during a crisis).

This ambiguity is exploited both by domestic opposition and by Russian propaganda, which promotes narratives about an “illegitimate regime” and “usurped power.”

3. Institutional Pressure on the Presidential Administration

The succession of reshuffles, dismissals and reorganizations—although inevitable during a crisis—contributes to the perception of administrative instability. Zelensky has reacted to scandals by replacing ministers and agency heads and by initiating investigations, seeking to demonstrate zero tolerance for abuses.

These measures have conveyed two contradictory signals:

• positive: the president responds to misconduct and does not shield corrupt actors;
• negative: the system is fragile enough for scandals to recur despite reshuffles.

In wartime, the public prefers stability and predictability; frequent changes at the top can fuel the impression of improvisation.

4. Tension Between National Unity and Pressure for Reform

Zelensky faces a difficult trilemma:

• pushing too hard on anti-corruption reforms risks internal fractures and the loss of administrative elites needed to manage the war;
• easing pressure on anti-corruption risks losing the trust of the EU and the United States;
• reopening the debate on elections during full-scale war risks political and media destabilization.

This structural tension explains why presidential responses sometimes appear oscillating: firm in rhetoric, cautious or delayed at the institutional level.

5. Strategic Consequence: A Strong but Increasingly Vulnerable Presidency

At present, Zelensky holds the largest volume of executive power in Ukraine’s recent history. This concentration is simultaneously:

• strategically necessary in an existential war;
• politically exposed, due to scandals and growing contestation;
• institutionally fragile, as it relies on emergency governance and the suspension of normal mechanisms of democratic alternation.

Corruption scandals not only affect Zelensky’s personal image; they call into question the effectiveness of Ukraine’s governance mechanisms precisely at a moment when the country needs maximum coherence.

IV. Geopolitical Implications and the Western Response

Ukraine’s corruption crisis has direct external reverberations, shaping Western perceptions and the calibration of support provided to Kyiv. In this context, a notable development was President Zelensky’s visit to Paris and the signing, on 17 November 2025, together with President Macron, of a letter of intent for Ukraine’s potential acquisition of up to 100 French-made Rafale fighter aircraft, SAMP/T air-defense systems, drones, radars and associated munitions[9].

The document is a political commitment, not a binding sales contract. France states that the first delivery could take place within the next three years, with full implementation over roughly a decade. Financing remains uncertain: EU mechanisms (such as the SAFE defense investment instrument) and the possible use of frozen Russian assets are mentioned as potential sources.

1. The European Union: Between Solidarity and Conditionality

The EU has adopted a dual approach:

• reaffirming support for Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity, viewing its resistance as a matter of European security;
• imposing strict conditionality regarding reforms, judicial independence and anti-corruption.

On several occasions, Brussels has conditioned or postponed financial tranches, sending a clear signal: European integration cannot be detached from internal performance in fighting corruption.

2. The United States: Consistent but Not Unconditional Support

The United States remains Ukraine’s principal provider of military assistance, but the tone in Washington has become more nuanced. Congress has demanded additional audits, and the administration has insisted on transparency in the use of funds, precisely to avoid parallels with the Afghan precedent.

In the context of U.S. domestic politics, any perception that resources are being wasted in a corrupt state can fuel isolationist currents and complicate approval of new support packages.

3. NATO: Corruption as a Military Vulnerability

Although NATO does not directly fund civilian budgets, the Alliance constantly evaluates the ability of partner states to manage military assistance effectively.

Corruption in logistics, procurement and recruitment is considered a major military vulnerability. It affects:

• the credibility of defense-sector reforms;
• medium-term interoperability;
• trust in the use of equipment delivered by allies.

4. Russia: Narrative Exploitation of the Integrity Crisis

The Russian Federation aggressively exploits Ukraine’s corruption scandals to promote three key narratives:

• Ukraine is an irredeemably corrupt and dysfunctional state;
• Zelensky leads an “illegitimate regime” artificially sustained by the West;
• Western aid is being “squandered” in a system that cannot be reformed.

These narratives are disseminated in the European information space, the Global South and euroskeptic political circles, with varied but tangible impact.

5. The Risk of “Strategic Fatigue” in the West

Corruption increases the risk of strategic fatigue among Western partners. In a context of economic pressures, domestic budgetary debates and the rise of populist forces, scandals in Kyiv can become arguments for reducing support.

Even if Western backing is unlikely to be withdrawn abruptly, its pace and volume may be adjusted—potentially complicating Ukraine’s ability to sustain a prolonged conflict.

6. Impact on Ukraine’s European Trajectory

Paradoxically, the corruption crisis could also act as a catalyst for reforms. EU pressure, combined with the necessity of post-war reconstruction, may force Kyiv to adopt measures such as:

• judicial restructuring;
• strengthening anti-corruption institutions;
• greater transparency in energy and public procurement;
• reducing the influence of oligarchic networks.

Without such steps—taken much more decisively—Ukraine’s European path risks being blocked or postponed indefinitely, a scenario that appears increasingly plausible[10].

V. Analytical Conclusions: Between Resilience, Vulnerability and the Need for Institutional Reset

1. A Strong Presidency in a Institutionally Weakened State

President Zelensky remains the central figure of Ukrainian resistance[11], but the concentration of power around him comes at a cost. As long as Ukraine functions under an emergency regime, democratic mechanisms are partially suspended and the space for abuse and error expands.

Zelensky cannot be separated from the effectiveness of the state he leads: any institutional failure is automatically perceived as a weakness of the presidency.

2. Corruption — A Strategic Vulnerability, Not Merely an Administrative One

Corruption impacts much more than governance efficiency; it erodes:

• military capability,
• social cohesion,
• international positioning,
• the credibility of Ukraine’s European trajectory.

Western partners have reached a shared conclusion: without clear and demonstrable progress in anti-corruption efforts, Ukraine risks losing the moral advantage it held in 2022.

3. Political Legitimacy — An Open Question

The continuity of the presidential mandate under martial law is perfectly legal, yet it is not perceived as equally legitimate by all political and social actors.

The ambiguity between legal continuity and democratic legitimacy constitutes an institutional fissure which, combined with corruption scandals, may generate medium-term internal tensions.

4. The West: Firm but Conditional Support

The EU and the United States understand that an internal collapse in Ukraine would have dramatic consequences for European security and for the credibility of the West. At the same time, their support is no longer unconditional.

Transparency, auditing, limiting oligarchic influence and protecting anti-corruption institutions have become baseline parameters of their relationship with Kyiv.

5. Strategic Outlook for 2026

Without credible reforms, possible scenarios include:

• weakening of internal cohesion;
• gradual reduction of external support;
• difficulties in any post-war negotiations;
• increased political pressure on the presidency.

If, on the contrary, Zelensky succeeds in strengthening NABU and SAPO, cleaning up the vulnerable sectors (energy, defense, recruitment) and ensuring high levels of wartime expenditure transparency, Ukraine could regain its reputation as a reforming state[12] and accelerate its path toward the EU — although this is unlikely during wartime and with only limited chances after the conflict ends.

Final Conclusion

Ukraine stands at a critical juncture: between military resilience and political vulnerability, between Western support and growing skepticism, between the need for unity and the pressure for reforms.

The Zelensky presidency remains an anchor of stability[13], but it is increasingly exposed. Without a firm and transparent response to internal corruption, the moral advantage accumulated in 2022 risks further erosion.

Ukraine’s resistance is not defined solely on the battlefield, but also in the strength of its own institutions. The political future of the president and the country’s strategic positioning depend on how effectively these vulnerabilities are contained and corrected.

Selective Bibliography

International Crisis Group. Ukraine: Reform Under Fire. Brussels, 2024.

Analysis of institutional performance under wartime pressures.

Chatham House – Ukraine Forum. Corruption, Governance and War: Ukraine’s Institutional Resilience. London, 2023.

A reference study on state resilience and the limits of reform.

Transparency International Ukraine. Corruption Risks in the Defense Sector During Wartime. Kyiv, 2023–2024.

Detailed report on military procurement, logistics and administrative vulnerabilities.

NABU (National Anti-Corruption Bureau of Ukraine). Annual Reports 2023–2024. Kyiv.

Official presentation of major cases, including Energoatom, procurement and systemic abuses.

CEPA – Center for European Policy Analysis. A European Home for Ukraine: Challenges and Conditions. Washington & Brussels, 2024.

Analysis of Ukraine’s EU trajectory, political tensions and conditionality.

Atlantic Council. Ukraine’s Wartime Governance: Consolidation, Risks, and Strategic Choices. Washington, 2024.

Strong assessment of the balance between executive power and state institutions.

Kyiv International Institute of Sociology (KIIS). Public Trust and Political Confidence in Ukraine: 2022–2025. Kyiv, 2025.

Surveys on public trust in Zelensky and perceptions of corruption.

European Court of Auditors. EU Support to Ukraine: Reforms, Accountability and Conditionality. Luxembourg, 2024.

Summary of Western conditionality in the field of anti-corruption.

RAND Corporation. Ukraine’s Defense Institutions Under Pressure: Mobilization, Logistics, and Integrity. Santa Monica, 2024.

Strategic analysis of internal military vulnerabilities.

Wilson Center. Ukraine’s Anti-Corruption Architecture: Progress and Political Constraints. Washington, 2023.

Balanced study of NABU, SAPO, HACC and political interference.

About the author:
Corneliu Pivariu is a highly decorated two-star general of the Romanian army (Rtd). He has founded and led one of the most influential magazines on geopolitics and international relations in Eastern Europe, the bilingual journal Geostrategic Pulse, for two decades. General Pivariu is a member of IFIMES Advisory Board.

   Comments0