The Possible Impact of Ukraine’s Major Corruption Scandal on Moldova

Kyiv risks facing long-term repercussions from the widespread corruption uncovered within President Volodymyr Zelensky’s entourage. This situation could significantly affect Moldova’s European integration prospects, with both potential positive and negative consequences

Vladimir ROTARI, RTA: A massive corruption scandal continues to rage in the neighboring country, that is called by some observers as a “black swan” for the political system built by Volodymyr Zelensky. For now, he and his entourage appear completely stunned by the situation, which is somewhat surprising. After all, a counterattack by the anticorruption institutions, following the failed attempt this summer to de facto subordinate them to the president’s office, was almost inevitable. It is worth recalling that as early as mid-year, Ukraine saw the launch of several high-profile investigations into embezzlement involving President Zelensky’s closest associates – in particular, charges of abuse of office and illicit gain were brought against his confidant, godfather, Deputy Prime Minister, and Minister for National Unity Oleksiy Chernyshov. This prompted the adoption of a bill aimed at stripping the National Anticorruption Bureau and the Specialized Anticorruption Prosecutor’s Office of their independence, that passed all readings in the Verkhovna Rada literally in a single day. However, this turned out to be a major political flaw. Official Kyiv came under sharp criticism from European partners for backsliding on democratic standards, and spontaneous protests began to gather in Ukrainian cities. As a result, Ukraine’s leader was forced to quickly reverse his own decision. But, as I wrote at the time, this could no longer save him from the long-term consequences. First, the unquestioned authority of Zelensky, who over recent years has accumulated many powerful enemies inside the country, forming something resembling an “informal coalition”, was seriously shaken. For example, the rapidly escalating protests in July were almost certainly its handiwork. Second, a counterstrike from the anticorruption institutions, which had successfully protected their independence, became only a matter of time, while the political capacity to fend it off had been critically weakened. It is worth noting that Zelensky’s opponents did a rather effective job of warming up public opinion before giving the signal for a new attack. For quite some time, rumors had been circulating in the country about the so-called “Mindich tapes” – recordings from the safe apartment of businessman Timur Mindich, a figure extremely close to the president, in which corruption schemes were allegedly discussed. According to the rumors, the president himself appears in these recordings. Now, as we can see, the tapes have turned out to be real. Judging by everything, the information already released, including audio of conversations between the accused, is only the tip of the iceberg, and the “main weapons” have yet to be deployed. But even this was enough to shake the whole of Ukraine and the Western public. The anticorruption bodies and those standing behind them organized their offensive skillfully. It was no coincidence that the initial transcripts and accusations focused specifically on the energy sector. For a population that now spends up to 16 hours a day without electricity and often without heating or other basic utilities, theft involving, for example, the protection of energy facilities naturally provoked extremely strong negative emotions. No less outrage was sparked by the embezzlement in the defense sector, which became the subject of the next batch of leaked recordings and accusations. The President’s Office has been placed in a stalemate. On the one hand, choosing not to defend itself at all would once again signal weakness and provoke an even stronger offensive against it. On the other hand, the scandal is far too large to be fully contained at this stage. As a result, Zelensky formally expressed support for the work of the anticorruption bodies, called for the resignation of the ministers of energy and justice, and imposed sanctions on the main figures implicated in the criminal scheme uncovered by NABU – Timur Mindich and Oleksandr Zukerman. At the same time, few people believed in the sincerity of these measures. The sanctions themselves were approved for only three years rather than the usual ten, and they are much softer in substance – they do not even include an entry ban. Moreover, Mindich and Zukerman are listed as Israeli citizens rather than Ukrainian, which many also interpreted as a deliberate choice. Especially since the main figures left the country in advance. But the main point is that Volodymyr Zelensky neither challenged nor formally blocked the investigation, he effectively “blessed” it. This may be a forced decision, but it is nonetheless a very risky one. If the rumors are true and the tapes contain something that directly discredits him personally, it would almost certainly mean the end of his presidency. Perhaps the calculation is that Western partners will not risk destabilizing the political system of a country at war to such an extent. Yet Zelensky already misjudged Western reactions in the summer, assuming they would not dare to respond publicly to actions taken against NABU and SAPO. Moreover, according to insider information, a replacement for the president has long been prepared: the popular former Commander-in-Chief Valerii Zaluzhnyi, who is reportedly already forming his own team of future officials. If we look at the situation more broadly, it becomes clear that the unfolding “Mindichgate” is already inflicting serious damage on Ukraine’s international image. In this sense, the negative consequences may affect two key areas – future financing and European integration. As for the first issue, there is currently an extremely difficult discussion underway about how to provide Kyiv with the necessary funding for the next one to two years. The most widely debated option is the issuance of a “reparations loan” of €140 billion, to be financed through the effective seizure of Russia’s frozen assets in Europe. This amount would cover more than a year of Ukraine’s needs, since its current annual requirement is roughly €120 billion. However, several countries oppose this plan – primarily Hungary and Slovakia, as well as Belgium, which wants guarantees for risk-sharing, given that the largest share of Russian assets is held there. Opponents of aid to Ukraine are already actively exploiting the corruption scandal to promote their position. At the same time, if new tranches are not urgently allocated, Kyiv could run out of funds as early as February next year. The EU integration process is also at risk. Even before this week’s developments, many observers pointed out the scathing assessments of Ukraine in the recent European Commission progress report. The criticism focused primarily on the fight against corruption. Now the Ukrainian authorities and their partners in the EU are trying to advance an anti-crisis narrative, claiming that the “Mindich case” is in fact a clear marker that corruption is genuinely being combated. However, this argument appears weak given that the investigation targets the highest circles of power in the country. For Chisinau, which has set the ambitious goal of completing accession negotiations with Brussels within two years, Kyiv once again unfortunately proves to be a toxic ally. By remaining in the same package with Ukraine, we risk seriously slowing down our progress and pushing our European prospects many years into the future. The number of Ukraine’s supporters in the EU is steadily decreasing, while its opponents are becoming increasingly radical in their reluctance to see the country join the Union. Moreover, as the fighting continues, our neighbor is suffering ever-greater damage – a factor that European capitals are clearly taking into account as they estimate not only the sums needed to bring this large country up to EU standards, but also the enormous resources required to rebuild it after the war. For us, the only likely positive scenario in this situation would be to separate Moldova’s and Ukraine’s applications, so as no longer to make our progress dependent on our neighbor. This option has been actively discussed throughout the year but was blocked by Kyiv, which deployed all possible resources to prevent such a development. However, changing circumstances may give us a second chance to pursue a solo course toward the European Union.