RKSL
The Frontline
Nov 28, 2025
The raid on Andriy Yermak’s home and his resignation from office have drawn understandable attention, yet their real significance lies not in the fate of Zelensky’s closest adviser or the deliberate speculation surrounding Zelensky himself, but in the larger conditions that shaped the moment in which they occurred. The actions taken against Yermak were carried out by Ukraine’s own investigative institutions, which were built to operate independently of political preference and to continue their work even under the most difficult circumstances. Their importance must therefore be understood not as an isolated episode, but as part of a broader architecture created to confront the structural corruption inherited from Russia’s long colonial rule, an architecture that now functions within a geopolitical environment deliberately calibrated to weaken Ukraine’s position.
Ukraine’s anti-corruption institutions were created with a particular moral and historical burden. They were designed not only to address the familiar problems of illicit finance, patronage, and political interference, but also to confront the deeper patterns embedded by centuries of imperial governance. The Soviet system did not simply leave behind broken ministries and depleted budgets. It left behind a culture of administrative distortion, networks of compromise, and habits of political manipulation that were meant to maintain Russian control and survive the empire itself. NABU, Ukraine’s national anti-corruption bureau created in the post-Maidan reforms, was built as a remedy to this inheritance. Its task is to investigate the residues of colonial extraction and to guard against the return of Russian influence disguised as business ties, informal relationships, compromised officials, or the quiet channels through which Moscow has so often tried to shape the internal life of the countries it once ruled.
From the beginning, this mandate ensured that NABU’s work would reach those who sit closest to authority. It is neither surprising nor improper that senior figures, including Yermak, have at various points been subject to scrutiny. Pursuing corruption, especially when it concerns individuals who abuse their position or betray the public trust, is not only justified but essential for a state fighting for its future. It is remarkable, even admirable, that Ukraine continues this work in the middle of a full-scale war, refusing to suspend its principles even under existential threat. Yet the integrity of such investigations does not shield them from the broader environment in which they occur. Some concerns around Yermak have come from those genuinely committed to strengthening the Ukrainian state. Others have emerged from political rivalry, bureaucratic friction, or the efforts of actors who benefit from magnifying suspicion. Ukraine’s oversight mechanisms were meant to sustain accountability in a political culture long distorted by imperial governance, and they must continue to function even when their work is seized upon by foreign powers attempting to turn legitimate oversight into political leverage.
This internal work developed alongside long-term cooperation with Western partners. NABU’s relationship with the FBI, formalized through a memorandum signed after its creation and periodically renewed, grew from the recognition that corruption in the post-Soviet space often extends across borders, moves through offshore structures, and circulates through Western financial systems. Under this agreement, the FBI maintains a permanent office within NABU’s structure to coordinate cooperation on high-level corruption cases. In November 2025, Ukrainian media reported that NABU detectives in Kyiv met with a newly rotated FBI liaison officer under this same interagency framework in a working meeting focused on the Mindich corruption case, a reminder that the channel remains active even as the political environment around it has shifted and the Trump administration has fundamentally ceased all international aid. In its strongest form, this cooperation gave Ukraine access to investigative tools that allowed it to trace illicit networks, examine international financial flows, and protect itself from the lingering forms of influence that Russia embedded across the region. It strengthened the state and supported the development of a democratic order built to withstand the pressures of war and political transition.
A system like this depends on foreign partners who share an interest in Ukraine’s sovereignty. When that assumption holds, cooperation reinforces stability. When it is violated, the architecture becomes vulnerable. The appointment of Kash Patel as Director of the FBI marked such a rupture. Patel arrived as a political loyalist rather than a steward of an agency historically guided by professional independence, and he assumed office within an American administration that has shown little distinction between public responsibility and private financial gain. His early restructuring of the Bureau, including the removal of officials who worked on politically sensitive matters, signaled a willingness to align the agency’s priorities with the president’s personal and geopolitical aims. In such an environment, cooperation with NABU does not cease. It shifts. Channels created to expose corruption can be positioned to apply pressure at the precise moment when the United States is attempting to force Ukraine to accept a settlement written in Moscow.
The connection follows a familiar principle of political analysis: follow the money. A corrupt American administration entangled in foreign financial interests sees opportunity where others see danger. When its senior figures profit from opaque dealings with autocratic regimes and when foreign policy becomes a mechanism for private enrichment, investigative cooperation acquires a different significance. A coerced settlement placing Ukrainian territory under Russian control would generate vast opportunities for reconstruction contracts, investment channels, and resource concessions from which the American president and his circle expect to benefit. In that environment, even legitimate anti-corruption inquiries can be framed, timed, or amplified in ways that weaken Ukraine’s negotiating position. The danger does not lie in NABU’s independence. It lies in the fact that one of its principal international partners is now guided by financial ambition rather than the defense of Ukrainian sovereignty.
This is the context in which the raids on Yermak must be understood. The existence of an investigation does not determine its meaning. Oversight remains essential to Ukraine’s survival as a sovereign state. But the geopolitical environment in which these actions occur has been
deliberately shaped by an American administration seeking to extract concessions from Ukraine at the very moment when Russia cannot secure them on the battlefield. A mechanism built to protect Ukraine from the legacies of empire can, under these conditions, be misinterpreted or misused by foreign actors who see advantage in presenting oversight as instability or scrutiny as political unraveling.
Ukraine’s institutions cannot suspend their responsibilities simply because the country is at war. Yet Ukraine must also remain clear-eyed about the ways in which foreign powers attempt to manipulate those same institutions in order to force outcomes that no legitimate Ukrainian government can accept. The challenge is not to choose between accountability and sovereignty. It is to preserve both in the face of external coercion.
Ukraine has survived every prediction of collapse. It has endured bombardment, occupation, deportation, and the ongoing attempt to erase its identity and political existence. It survives because its people understand what defeat would mean. It survives because the society rejects the terms of surrender that Russia continues to demand.
In this moment, clarity is a form of defense. Ukraine’s anti-corruption system was created to dismantle the colonial patterns Moscow left behind. It was not created to support a settlement designed in Moscow and advanced by an American administration seeking profit and geopolitical barter. The distinction matters. Ukraine can sustain institutional oversight without permitting foreign manipulation. And guarding that distinction is now essential to its sovereignty and survival.