In the wake of the Euromaidan protests that toppled the government of Viktor Yanukovych in 2014, Ukrainian activists and civil society organizations have pressed hard for anti-corruption reforms and greater openness and transparency in the public sector. Five years later, however, corruption remains a fixture of civic life—and a majority of Ukrainians believe the fight against corruption has been a failure. This new report reviews the changes that have taken place in the anti-corruption movement since the Euromaidan and identifies practical actions the international community can take to support reform efforts in Ukraine.

Vitaly Shabunin of the Anti-Corruption Action Center rallies protesters outside the Specialized Anti-Corruption Prosecutor’s Office in Kyiv. (Photo by Viacheslav Ratynskyi/Reuters)
Vitaly Shabunin of the Anti-Corruption Action Center rallies protesters outside the Specialized Anti-Corruption Prosecutor’s Office in Kyiv. (Photo by Viacheslav Ratynskyi/Reuters)

Summary

  • Despite an array of institutional innovations and reforms since the Euromaidan protest movement (or Revolution of Dignity) of 2013–14, corruption remains stubbornly persistent in Ukraine, with deleterious effects on the country’s economy.
  • Ordinary Ukrainians continue to support anti-corruption initiatives as a key national priority, but their support of anti-corruption reforms pales in comparison with their support for efforts to regain control of Ukraine’s eastern regions from Russian forces.
  • Shortfalls in accountable governance suggest that a reform strategy that has combined an emphasis on closing loopholes and curtailing opportunities for corruption with increasing the transparency of government processes and decision making is insufficient.
  • Activists and civil society organizations have directly contributed to major anti-corruption reforms and programs, but their influence and leverage are limited. They are also increasingly targeted by campaigns of intimidation and violence.
  • A divergence with respect to the pace and sequencing of change has emerged between local anti-corruption activists, on the one hand, and foreign donors and partners working in Ukraine, on the other, further complicating efforts to achieve accountability in governance.
  • International donors and foreign governments should refrain from providing financial support for the government in areas where it fails to deliver on anti-corruption reforms and should more strenuously protect and support activists.

About the Report

This report reviews the work of Ukrainian activists on advancing transparency and accountability reforms since the Euromaidan protests of 2013–14. Based on data collected from public sources and interviews conducted with activists and political observers in Ukraine in the summer and fall of 2018, the report was supported by the United States Institute of Peace, with assistance from USAID’s Democracy, Human Rights, and Governance office.

About the Author

Olena Tregub is secretary-general of the Independent Defense Anti-Corruption Committee, which was established by Transparency International to combat corruption in Ukraine’s defense sector. From 2015 to 2017, she led the national authority for international development assistance coordination in Ukraine’s Ministry of Economic Development.


Related Publications

Modi Walks a Diplomatic Tightrope in Ukraine

Modi Walks a Diplomatic Tightrope in Ukraine

Thursday, August 29, 2024

Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi visited Kyiv on Friday, marking the first time an Indian leader has gone to Ukraine since its 1991 independence. Ukrainian officials said the visit demonstrated diplomatic backing for the war-torn nation, as it looks to build support among non-Western nations ahead of any potential negotiations on a settlement to the conflict. Although India has long-standing close ties with Russia, it has sought to portray a neutral stance on the conflict. As part of Modi’s bid to boost India’s international clout, he wants to demonstrate that Delhi can play a constructive, “friendly” role in resolving the war.

Type: Question and Answer

Global Policy

Why Is the U.S. Deploying Long-Range Missiles in Germany?

Why Is the U.S. Deploying Long-Range Missiles in Germany?

Wednesday, August 21, 2024

On the sidelines of last month’s NATO summit, the United States and Germany announced that Washington will begin episodic deployments of long-range conventional capabilities to Germany. In 1987, the United States and Soviet Union agreed to eliminate these systems under the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) treaty, but Russia’s violations led the United States to withdraw from the treaty in 2019. Three years later, Russia invaded Ukraine and has engaged in nuclear saber-rattling since then. Washington plans to deploy these systems to strengthen deterrence, but Moscow has criticized them.

Type: Question and Answer

Global Policy

Ukraine’s Pivot Changes the Narrative in Russia’s war; Outcome Remains Unclear

Ukraine’s Pivot Changes the Narrative in Russia’s war; Outcome Remains Unclear

Thursday, August 15, 2024

Almost 30 months into Vladimir Putin’s brutalization of Ukraine with a full-scale invasion that has pulverized vast swaths of its farmlands, towns and cities, Ukrainians have surprised Putin and the world by driving the war back into Russia — a move that, if nothing else, has altered the current narrative around this conflict. Ukraine has again brandished its determination, initiative and innovation, effectively resetting assumptions in its defense against its much larger attacker. The possible outcomes of Ukraine’s strike remain varied and unpredictable — and its eventual implications will rest on the evolutions of several questions, both military and political.

Type: Analysis

Global Policy

Donald Jensen on Ukraine’s Surprise Incursion into Russia

Donald Jensen on Ukraine’s Surprise Incursion into Russia

Monday, August 12, 2024

The Ukrainian military seized a chunk of territory in the Kursk region of Russia as part of a surprise incursion that has left the Russian military in “a panic,” says USIP’s Donald Jensen, adding that Putin’s strategy until now did not “take into account that Ukraine could strike back, and they certainly have.”

Type: Podcast

View All Publications