The European Commission told Kyiv that “recent negative trends” in corruption enforcement must be “decisively reversed” or risk billions in European funding and accession progress.
The warning marks a decisive turn from July, when Brussels had secretly planned to fast-track Ukraine’s first EU negotiating cluster—until President Zelenskyy’s government stripped anti-corruption agencies of independence, forcing Brussels to abandon the plan entirely. Four months later, Ukraine missed critical reform deadlines, watched its security agencies fight publicly, and saw Brussels go from ally to skeptic.
At stake: over €12 billion already disbursed through the €50 billion Ukraine Facility, with future quarterly payments conditional on governance benchmarks Ukraine keeps missing.
The Commission’s draft enlargement report, obtained by the Kyiv Independent before Tuesday’s release, acknowledges Ukraine met conditions to open three of six accession clusters—but makes clear institutional stability matters more than checking reform boxes.
“Recent negative trends, including a growing pressure on the specialised anti-corruption agencies and civil society, must be decisively reversed,” the Commission stated in the draft report.
What Brussels is actually worried about
Four months after that July crisis, the institutional damage persists. The question isn’t whether Ukraine can pass reforms. It’s whether those reforms survive when investigations reach politically sensitive targets.
Since July, Ukraine’s National Anti-Corruption Bureau (NABU) and Security Service have been locked into an escalating confrontation involving raids, arrests, and mutual investigations. At the same time, both agencies acknowledge that only Russia benefits from their public standoff.
- 2 September: NABU charges the former head of the Security Service’s cybersecurity unit with illicit enrichment.
- 10 September: The Security Service responds by charging a NABU detective with false declarations.
- 25 September: Security Service searches property belonging to a former NABU detective.
This isn’t bureaucratic squabbling. It’s two powerful institutions with arrest authority fighting in the open while Ukraine asks Europe for membership.
The pattern extends beyond inter-agency warfare. On 28 October, authorities detained former Ukrenergo chief Volodymyr Kudrytskyi—fourteen months after Western board members quit the state energy company in protest, calling his earlier dismissal “politically motivated.” Anti-corruption lawyer Daria Kaleniuk wrote on Facebook that “persecution of government critics through transparently fabricated criminal cases is already a trend,” reversing Ukraine’s European path.
How Ukraine got here
The crisis dates back to ten days in July that nearly killed Ukraine’s accession prospects.
On 21 July, President Zelenskyy signed legislation subordinating NABU and the Specialized Anti-Corruption Prosecutor’s Office (SAPO) to the Prosecutor General—a political appointee. This came one day after authorities conducted over 70 raids against NABU offices, arresting detectives on espionage charges critics called pretextual.
Brussels had secretly scheduled 18 July to open Ukraine’s first EU negotiating cluster, bypassing Hungary entirely. The anti-corruption crackdown killed that plan.
Rare wartime protests forced parliament to restore the agencies’ independence by 31 July, but the institutional damage remained. The Commission’s report reflects what European officials watched unfold: Ukraine’s challenge isn’t implementing reforms but ensuring institutions can function independently under political pressure.
The deadline problem
In September, Ukraine’s parliament rejected draft law №13150—legislation that would have let citizens sue local officials for illegal decisions—with only 206 of 226 votes needed. The missed 31 March deadline was a specific condition for continued Ukraine Facility payments.
The Ukraine Facility works through quarterly payments based on Ukraine meeting specific governance milestones.
Trending Now
Since March 2024, the EU has disbursed over €12 billion in funding for teacher salaries, healthcare workers, and essential government operations, while Ukraine allocates domestic resources to defense. Each missed deadline jeopardizes future tranches.
What Ukraine says it can do
Ukraine has informed EU officials it aims to complete accession negotiations by the end of 2028. The Commission called this “ambitious but attainable” only with faster reforms, though Ukrainian officials privately acknowledge 2030 as more realistic.
“The Commission is committed to support this ambitious objective but considers that to meet it an acceleration of the pace of reforms is required, notably with regards to the fundamentals, in particular rule of law,” the draft report states.
The timeline faces obstacles beyond institutional stability.
Hungary continues blocking Ukraine from formally opening any negotiation clusters, despite the Commission ruling that Ukraine is technically ready. European Council President António Costa proposed allowing cluster openings by qualified majority rather than unanimous consent, but the Netherlands defended Hungary’s veto rights at October’s Copenhagen summit.
What the warning means
Brussels’ assessment is calculated: Even if mechanisms existed to bypass Hungary, Ukraine’s institutional fragility provides substantive grounds for skepticism about accelerated accession. The Commission praised Ukraine’s “remarkable commitment” to EU membership despite Russia’s war—then immediately warned about “pressure on specialised anti-corruption agencies and civil society.”
That duality reflects what European officials have concluded: Ukraine has made extraordinary progress under impossible circumstances.
Yet, for a country seeking EU membership while fighting an existential war, building institutions that survive political interference when investigations reach sensitive targets may prove harder than any legislative checklist.
The shift from July’s planned fast-track to November’s formal warnings tells you what Brussels really thinks about Ukraine’s trajectory. The question now is whether Kyiv can reverse it before the next tranche deadline.
