USA Rules Ukraine Through Anticorruption Agency | Prof. Ivan Katchanovski

## Intro The recent eruption of corruption allegations in Kyiv is not merely another domestic scandal. The exchange with Professor Ivan Katchanovski frames these events as a hinge moment—where internal politics, external patronage, and the pressure for a negotiated end to the war intersect. Far from an isolated law-enforcement action, the National Anti-Corruption Bureau of Ukraine (NABU) now appears to be a lever through which external actors, notably the United States, exercise influence over Ukrainian decision-making. The timing of NABU’s high-profile disclosures, coming as international attention centers on a proposed peace blueprint, raises hard questions about sovereignty, conditionality, and how “anticorruption” becomes a geopolitical instrument. ## The Link Between NABU and the FBI The conversation makes clear that NABU was not designed as a purely domestic institution but was established in the aftermath of the Maidan upheaval with substantial Western involvement. It was created as part of a package of reforms—mechanisms intended to reassure donor states and to institutionalize a depoliticized response to graft. Yet the presence of a permanently stationed FBI agent inside NABU complicates the claim to national independence. That embedded U.S. law-enforcement presence, reported in Ukrainian media and discussed in the exchange, means investigations are not conducted in a national vacuum; an external partner has ongoing access to files, personnel, and prosecutorial trajectories. This arrangement produces dual effects. On one hand, foreign involvement can buttress the autonomy of an anticorruption body against capture by a political executive. On the other, it channels agency away from domestic accountability toward a model where transatlantic priorities shape what counts as an urgent case. The conversation suggests that the recent investigations targeting figures close to the president could not have reached public disclosure without tacit agreement from U.S. counterparts. That dynamic turns NABU into both shield and sword: a shield for reformers who want an independent prosecutor and a sword for external actors who wish to shape Ukraine’s elite politics. ## Is NABU Constitutional? Structure & Funding NABU’s legal and constitutional standing in Ukraine is atypical. It did not arise from the 1996 Constitution and lacks entrenched constitutional status; instead, it was established by post-Maidan legislation and institutional design backed by foreign advisors and donors. Its leadership was selected through processes that involved Western experts, and a parallel prosecutor’s office—SAP, the Special Anti-Corruption Prosecutor—was created to complement it. Those selection mechanisms were explicitly designed to insulate NABU and SAP from executive capture: their heads were not straightforwardly appointable by the president or typical cabinet channels. That insulation, however, is a double-edged sword. It preserves investigatory independence in theory but raises questions of democratic legitimacy in practice. When an agency is perceived as created and staffed with substantial foreign input, it can be read by domestic actors as an instrument of external influence rather than a purely national institution. Funding and technical support from donor states and international partners have been central to NABU’s viability. The presence of foreign personnel with access to files—most notably the FBI liaison—creates an institutional architecture in which domestic constitutional boundaries are blurred by treaty-like cooperation and operational integration. The conversation underscores one practical consequence: when a president attempts to assert control—through legal changes or emergency decrees—backlash can come not only from domestic civil society but from international sponsors. Zelensky’s aborted attempt to bring NABU under the Prosecutor General’s Office showed the limits of executive authority when an agency has cultivated external patrons. That failed move also revealed how formal independence, coupled with foreign backing, can place an anticorruption body above the ordinary levers of presidential power. ## The "Guillotine": Controlling Ukraine via Corruption Charges If corruption in Ukraine has long been endemic, the weaponization of anticorruption institutions can be read as a strategic means of discipline. The conversation uses the metaphor of a “guillotine” to describe how revelations of graft and subsequent prosecutions can undermine, coerce, or reconfigure political leadership. Publicized recordings, leaked tapes, and the exposure of elite lifestyles—golden toilets, luxurious apartments, and private conversations—do more than convict individuals; they delegitimize networks and change the balance of power. This mechanism is most visible in the recent episode where recordings and investigative releases implicated figures within the president’s inner circle. The fallout diminished the president’s maneuverability, constrained his domestic base, and shifted his negotiating position on the war. Actors targeted by NABU investigations fled the country in some cases—apparently after receiving advance notice—demonstrating the uneven enforcement and the political choreography around such leaks. More than law enforcement, the anticorruption apparatus became a tool for restructuring who is politically viable in Kyiv. The “guillotine” metaphor also signals a paradox: anticorruption enforcement that is selective can strengthen rule of law institutions for some while functioning as a purge for others. When external actors view certain politicians as obstacles to broader geopolitical aims—like a negotiated settlement or policy alignment—anticorruption dossiers become a lever to coerce decisions without invoking overt force. The result is governance shaped by conditionality and scandal as much as by ballots or parliamentary majorities. ## Is the US Serious About the Trump Peace Plan? The conversation places the corruption scandal in direct relation to broader diplomatic efforts, notably an unsolicited 28-point peace framework floated by an external political figure. The timing of heavy anticorruption revelations, juxtaposed with renewed pressure for a diplomatic settlement, suggests coordinated pressure: Ukraine’s leadership is weakened domestically just as international interlocutors push for a settlement that may carry high political costs for Kyiv. Whether the United States is “serious” about any particular external peace initiative becomes less about public statements and more about leverage. If NABU and related agencies can constrain Kyiv’s options by targeting allies and making political survival contingent on compliance, then the practical seriousness of a peace plan turns on the mix of coercive instruments available: sanctions, security guarantees, and institutional pressure via anticorruption mechanisms. From the perspective sketched out in the conversation, the United States may use a combination of carrots and sticks—legal exposure being one such stick—to create the conditions under which Kyiv accepts proposals it might otherwise reject. That calculus has moral and strategic ramifications. Conditioning peace on opaque bargains or using anticorruption processes to bend sovereign decision-making risks delegitimizing outcomes and leaving unresolved the underlying political drivers of conflict. If a peace plan is accepted under duress, its durability is suspect: negotiated settlements require domestic consent and resilient institutions, not merely the temporary incapacitation of political opponents. ## Deep State Sabotage & Internal US Power Struggles A striking subtext of the conversation is the suggestion that internal U.S. politics and institutional actors also play into Ukraine’s turbulence. References to differing attitudes among American officials, and the notion of “deep state” sabotage, point to an arena where competing Washington fa

USA Rules Ukraine Through Anticorruption Agency [Subtitles available — turn them on for clearer understanding] Ukraine is marred in a corruption scandal, investigated by its anticorruption bureau, NABU, linking very high profile politicians to all sorts of illegal money schemes. What a coincidence that this is coming out right now, when the USA is trying to except power over Kiev to accept Trumps so called “28 Point Peace Plan”. Here to make sense of this is again Professor Ivan Katchanovski. Professor Katchanovski is a Ukranian-Canadian political scientist at the University of Ottawa and the author of the books “The Maidan Massacre in Ukraine: The Mass Killing that Changed the World” and most recently “The Russia-Ukraine War and its Origins.” Links: Help Prof. Katchanovski: https://gofund.me/79a58e94d And read his new book here (free): https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-3-031-98724-3 FB post about NABU and FBI: https://www.facebook.com/ivan.katchanovski/photos/as-i-said-nabu-which-went-against- zelenskys-cronies-is-a-us-proxy-in-ukraine-nab/25684146844521859 Neutrality Studies substack: https://pascallottaz.substack.com Goods Store: https://neutralitystudies-shop.fourthwall.com Timestamps: 00:00:00 Intro 00:08:38 The Link Between NABU and the FBI 00:17:10 Is NABU Constitutional? Structure & Funding 00:27:10 The "Guillotine": Controlling Ukraine via Corruption Charges 00:34:08 Is the US Serious About the Trump Peace Plan? 00:43:59 Deep State Sabotage & Internal US Power Struggles 00:54:10 Professor Katchanovski’s Books & Research #Pascal Ukraine is deep in a corruption scandal, investigated by its anti-corruption bureau, NABU, linking very high-profile politicians to all sorts of illegal money schemes. What a coincidence that this is coming out now, just as the US is trying to exert power over Kyiv to accept Trump’s so-called 28- point peace plan. Here to make sense of this is, again, Professor Ivan Katchanovski. Professor Katchanovski is a Ukrainian-Canadian political scientist at the University of Ottawa and the author of the books *The Maidan Massacre in Ukraine: The Mass Killing That Changed the World*, and, most recently, *The Russia-Ukraine War and Its Origins*. Both of these books are available online and for free, by the way—they’re open access, so you can download them. The links will be in the description below. But now, Professor Katchanovski, welcome. #Ivan Katchanovski Yes, thank you for the invitation. #Pascal -- 1 of 16 -- Thank you very much for making time again. You’re one of the voices in academia who’s really been trying to work through the sources of what’s going on politically in these—well, in these very tragic circumstances. Most recently, let’s start with NABU and this corruption scandal. I mean, Ukraine hasn’ t exactly been famous for its anti-corruption efforts, but now NABU is cracking down on even very senior officials. You wrote a Facebook post in which you also pointed out the connections between NABU and the FBI. Could you give us an overview of what’s happening and what the link between the US and NABU is? #Ivan Katchanovski I think in the past week or so there were two major developments in Ukraine. One was this new peace plan suggested by Donald Trump to Zelensky, which is now again a top story in the news. The other, which actually preceded the announcement of the plan, was a corruption scandal in Ukraine— a major story there recently. It was, to a lesser extent, not as well reported by Western media, and there was almost no reaction from the American government or politicians. But I think this is also a major story because it’s closely linked to the peace plan now being discussed by Trump and Zelensky, given the impact of this corruption scandal on Zelensky and his close associates. So this scandal happened on Monday, November 11th, when the National Anti-Corruption Bureau of Ukraine, known as NABU, launched investigations and filed charges against top officials in Ukraine— people closely connected to Zelensky. All of them were basically part of his inner circle. These charges involved the First Deputy Prime Minister of Ukraine, then the Vice Prime Minister, Chernyshov, who is again closely connected to Zelensky and his wife—he’s the godfather of their children and also a personal friend. There were also two other members of the Ukrainian government implicated in the scandal: the Minister of Justice and the Minister of Energy. They had to resign—or rather, they didn’t actually resign but were dismissed by the Ukrainian parliament. But again, there were no serious consequences afterward. And you also have businesspeople who were very closely connected to Zelensky from the time when he was not yet president of Ukraine. One of them, who founded and actually owned Zelensky’s comedy studio called Kvartal 95—“Quarter 95,” basically a translation from Ukrainian—was a businessman named Timur Minzhin. He wasn’t very well known in Ukraine, but he was very closely linked to Zelensky because of his business ties and also because of a kind of personal relationship with him. There were stories that Zelensky celebrated his birthday in a room, in a very elite apartment in Kyiv, which was owned by this person. And there were also other ties going back to the time when both of them were working for the Ukrainian oligarch Ihor Kolomoisky, who’s now in prison. And so, Timur Minzhin was basically a low-level kind of person who was just working for Kolomoisky. He made ties and connections to both Zelensky and Kolomoisky. After the start of the war, he managed to get very rich by receiving a lot of money from a state company called Energoatom, -- 2 of 16 -- which is responsible for nuclear power plants in Ukraine. This was again an illegal scheme, and NABU published recordings of this person along with many other top officials in the Ukrainian government—some of whom I already mentioned, but also others close to Zelensky. So this is very large-scale corruption, which, I think, for the first time became public in Ukraine. But it was very clear that this was, again, not just an accident. This is just the tip of the iceberg of corruption. And Zelensky is, I think, very closely linked to this corruption. In this case, this person— again, Timur Minzhin—and another associate were able to flee Ukraine, or at least leave the country, with assistance, obviously, from the government. They received information about the NABU investigation and were able to leave Ukraine, going first to Poland and then to Israel. So now they are not in Ukraine. But the scandal was very significant, and it implicated not only, as I mentioned, close associates of Zelensky, but also him as well. There are reports that these tapes include conversations between Zelensky and Minzhin in his apartment, talking about Ukrainians in not very nice terms—basically about ordinary Ukrainians—and also about other people connected to the scandal, including a very important person called Yermak, who is, I think, the second most powerful person in Ukraine and even acts as president at times, while Zelensky often just reads his speeches. And this person, Yermak, was just leading the Ukrainian delegation for peace talks in Geneva with senior U.S. officials. This is also very important because this corruption scandal has made Zelensky’s position and power much more limited than before. Basically, he was a dictator before, and nobody could challenge him. There was no real opposition, no free media. And suddenly you have this anti- corruption agency, which had existed for quite a long time but never had investigations of such scale, and suddenly they release this information, which has significantly impacted Zelensky’s popularity and his ability to exercise power in Ukraine. And this has also had a very significant effect on his stance on the war in Ukraine, because he’s now basically accepted the possibility of having a peace deal with Russia, which was not, I think, very likely before. So this is, I think, very closely connected to the current efforts by Trump to also kind of make Zelensky—or try to force him—to sign a peace deal with Russia, which is, I think, another important and very serious issue as well. #Pascal May I just ask, because, you know, NABU has been in the media before as an institution. If I'm not wrong, it was around September or October when Mr. Zelensky tried to crack down on NABU and the anti-corruption bureau, right? And change it. Then there were suddenly mass protests in the streets by the NGOs, right? And you’ve also researched the NGOs, especially in connection to the Maidan protests, right? So this didn’t happen—Mr. Zelensky backed down and said, “I’m not going to change NABU.” And now NABU is cracking down on Mr. Zelensky’s inner circle at, well, a very opportune time, in order to twist his arm to actually give in. While at the same time, of course, Mr. -- 3 of 16 -- Zelensky’s right-wing nationalists, who had threatened his life before, are on the other side. I mean, can you talk about the connection between NABU and the United States? #Ivan Katchanovski Yes, I think this is basically the reason why NABU was able to launch this investigation in the first place and make it public—because there’s no other structure in Ukraine, besides the far right, like the neo-Nazi-led Azov and other far-right organizations, that can act independently from Zelenskyy’s government. He’s basically eliminated everything. He took control of the parliament of Ukraine, he took control of the state security service of Ukraine—the equivalent of the FBI in Ukraine. He took control over his own faction in parliament. So he also controls the prime minister of Ukraine, the entire government, and the military. He issued orders again to Syrskyi, who is supposed to be a top military official in Ukraine. Basically, Zelensky gave a lot of military orders, specifically not to withdraw Ukrainian forces from Pokrovsk and the Mirnohrad area, which is now basically encircled by the Russians. There have been very significant losses of Ukrainian soldiers who were trapped there for a long time, and now there’s no real possibility for them to escape. Zelensky basically saw himself as a kind of dictator of Ukraine, someone who would stay in power as long as the war continued. For this reason, he tried to extend the war and avoid making any peace deal. But the NABU agency is not just any other agency in Ukraine. It was created and organized with strong influence and participation from the United States and other Western governments. Since then, it’s basically been regarded in Ukraine as an agency that represents the interests of the United States and other Western countries, including those in the European Union. So it was seen as a tool of the West—specifically of the United States—to control and influence Ukrainian politics by using corruption as a way to do this. Because Ukrainian politics is, I think, among the most corrupt in the world. And this was long before the Russian-Ukrainian war. Zelensky is no exception. So this is why NABU— well, NABU was created independently from Zelensky. It wasn’t fully controlled by him, so he couldn’ t take control over it. He tried to do this in the summer of this year, after information about investigations into his close associates became public. There was also a photo of a golden toilet made public by one of the members of the Ukrainian parliament, from the apartment of this associate of Zelensky, Kyrylo Tymoshenko. So this was a big scandal, and Zelensky basically tried to take control over NABU and a related agency called SAP, the Special Anti-Corruption Prosecutor’s Office. He kind of issued a new law overnight that stripped NABU of its powers and put it under the control of the Prosecutor General’s Office of Ukraine, which was basically a pocket agency of Zelensky, since he controls the Prosecutor -- 4 of 16 -- General’s Office. Zelensky believed this would be a