Is Ukraine Jeopardizing Moldova’s EU Prospects?

The Ukrainian leadership is now scrambling to reverse its decision to strip anticorruption institutions of their independence – a move that Western media have already labeled “Volodymyr Zelensky’s biggest political mistake since 2019”. Regardless of how the situation unfolds, it will have serious implications for Ukraine’s European integration prospects and for Moldova as well

Vladimir ROTARI, RTA: The trajectory of the so-called “Association Trio” of Moldova, Ukraine, and Georgia, formed to enhance joint efforts toward EU accession, has taken a paradoxical turn. Although the alliance failed to make meaningful progress on its core objective, the onset of war accelerated all three countries into EU candidate status, offering them a much swifter route to full membership than previously expected. However, since then, Georgia’s European path has effectively stalled. Brussels was unable to engineer an acceptable power arrangement following parliamentary elections, prompting the EU to consider sanctions such as the suspension of visa-free travel and even disconnecting the country from the SWIFT international banking system. This week, Ukraine has also suffered a serious blow to its EU integration prospects. For a long time, the West turned a blind eye to Ukraine’s internal political developments, which have not always fit within the democratic and legal norms expected of a future EU member. Chief among these concerns is the construction of an increasingly authoritarian governance structure centered around the President’s Office, reducing the Cabinet, Parliament, judiciary, and prosecutor’s office to little more than formal executors of “top-down decisions”. Western partners have also been uneasy with Kyiv’s use of sanctions against its own citizens and legal entities as a political weapon, especially against President Zelensky’s opponents. Although critical voices occasionally surfaced in Western media, Ukraine’s leadership largely escaped serious scrutiny until now. This tolerance was rooted in a relationship of mutual dependency: the West poured enormous political and financial investments, from which the Zelensky administration became the primary beneficiary. Ukraine, in turn, has been engaged in a military confrontation with one of the West’s principal geopolitical adversaries. Together, this effectively excuses certain domestic excesses. Over three years of this dynamic, Zelensky’s inner circle appeared to grow confident in its impunity. The latest overreach was an attack on the last bastion of state power not under direct presidential control: the anticorruption institutions, which were created with Western backing, particularly from US Democrats. These structures, including the National Anticorruption Bureau, the Specialized Anticorruption Prosecutor’s Office, the National Agency for Corruption Prevention, and the High Anticorruption Court, were intentionally placed outside the influence of traditional bodies like the Interior Ministry and the Security Service. It must be acknowledged that Ukraine, like most post-Soviet states, struggles with widespread corruption at every level. The current administration has not been immune: even before the war, it faced frequent allegations of misappropriating public funds, especially in major infrastructure projects. Zelensky’s signature initiative, “Great Construction”, was derisively dubbed “Great Embezzlement” by opposition media. Since 2022, Ukraine has received Western financial aid on an unprecedented scale, prompting calls for enhanced oversight. But the war, combined with the dependency dynamic, created a shield that protected the Ukrainian authorities from serious criticism or exposure. Only occasionally did reports of massive embezzlement of Western aid surface in the press, and even then, they posed no threat to the presidential office. Meanwhile, the Western-aligned anticorruption apparatus continued to function and recently began closing in on Zelensky’s closest allies. Just a month ago, then-Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for National Unity, Oleksiy Chernyshov, considered one of Zelensky’s key allies, was charged with abuse of office and illicit enrichment. Rumors also swirled around Timur Mindich, co-founder of Zelensky’s former entertainment company “Kvartal 95” and widely regarded as his personal financier. The assault on the President’s inner circle likely triggered the crackdown on anticorruption bodies. What followed were sweeping raids and interrogations targeting agency personnel, and within a single day, a law revoking their independence was pushed through every legislative stage and signed by Zelensky. According to media reports, several European leaders pleaded with the Ukrainian president not to sign the bill, but he did so that same evening. Zelensky clearly underestimated the backlash from both foreign partners and domestic society. After a day of stunned silence, Europe’s leading media erupted in condemnation, denouncing Kyiv’s “autocratic behavior”. Some outlets called on Zelensky to resign, claiming he had become the main obstacle to peace and democratic reform. Official statements made it clear: if the law is not repealed, funding and EU accession talks could be suspended. Meanwhile, for the first time since the war began, protests involving thousands broke out across Ukrainian cities. For many, the attack on the anticorruption system was the final straw to voice long-simmering grievances against the government, leading to a rapid increase in protest turnout. Zelensky and his team made a grave political flaw. The hope that the West would turn a blind eye to the dismantling of its own accountability tools was overly optimistic. The growing protests also raised fears of a potential “Maidan scenario”, a risk compounded by the number of political enemies the regime has accumulated through its heavy-handed and often repressive governance style. The president has already submitted a draft law aimed at reversing the decision. However, its adoption is unlikely to put an end to the unfolding drama. The consequences of this miscalculation will inevitably manifest. Domestically, it will weaken Zelensky’s regime. It will become even harder to enforce voting discipline in the Rada on key legislation or to leverage law enforcement for semi-legal operations. Losing the battle over anticorruption institutions is bound to embolden Zelensky’s political opponents, who may now feel encouraged to intensify protest activity. More significantly, the West’s skeptics of Ukraine’s Euro-Atlantic integration now have powerful reasoning. The government’s actions have laid bare the absence of real democratic governance, the persistence of systemic corruption, and a clear reluctance to address it. It will now be much easier for Ukraine’s detractors to argue that the country is unfit for EU membership and to obstruct the process within the EU’s own procedural frameworks. Some even speculate that the West may attempt to oust Zelensky altogether. If so, a “Georgian scenario”, where Ukraine’s integration is effectively frozen, can no longer be ruled out. This development sends a troubling signal to Moldova as well, since its EU membership bid is tied to Ukraine’s. It’s a painful paradox: our eastern neighbor helped us fast-track European integration three years ago, but now its internal crisis is dragging us down. Brussels has floated the idea of decoupling the two bids, but Kyiv strongly opposes it, and Moldova’s leadership is unwilling to pick a fight with Ukraine or detach from the “Ukrainian locomotive”. In this sense, Ukraine’s reckless political maneuvers now jeopardize not only its own integration but that of Moldova as well. And it’s doubtful that anyone in Kyiv is giving much thought to such “minor details”.