“On the one hand this war is a crisis, but on the other hand it is a perfect chance and opportunity to reform Ukraine”
Ukraine is clinging to a financial lifeline via tens of billions of dollars in aid from the US and European Union, with substantially more needed for postwar reconstruction. An IMF staff report in December identified the re-entrenchment of “oligarchic interests” as a high risk to Ukraine’s reform and future external financing. A failure to more systematically root out graft would endanger that.
Yet oligarchs are as much a symptom as a cause of the poisonous cocktail of corruption and politics that has hobbled growth since Ukraine gained independence from the former Soviet Union in 1991. The worry, for a country hoping to make the transition to European integration from post-Soviet kleptocracy, is that their power revives.
Much will depend on the decisions that Zelenskiy, the EU, the US and international organizations such as the IMF take today – mid-war, with the oligarchs weakened and politics as usual suspended — to strengthen institutions and remove the conditions that allow graft to flourish. Key allies from Group of Seven nations are pressing the government in Kyiv to resume reform programs now, according to a European diplomat familiar with the matter.
Still missing are a clean-up of the judiciary and tax system, plus the digitalization of government procedures that would bring transparency. Without these steps, corruption among government ministries risks again poisoning Ukraine’s future, according to current and former officials.
New courts and special prosecutors were established to tackle corruption. Zelenskiy romped into the presidency with 73% of the vote in 2019, promising to take on the oligarchs and graft, while making peace with Russia. Although he did continue reform, the results were mixed by the time President Vladimir Putin ordered his troops into Ukraine last February. Ukraine’s Transparency International corruption score remains the worst in Europe, after Russia’s.
“The flows of money going to reconstruction should be well controlled (by donors), although to some extent that is wishful thinking,” said Francis Malige, managing director for financial institutions at the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development, who ran the EBRD’s operations in Ukraine and several other ex-Soviet countries from 2014-2018. “Look at what happened to the money spent in Afghanistan and Iraq.”
Keeping Ukraine on the reform path will be crucial. The EU is very likely to renew tariff breaks for the country for a second year starting in June, but the debate on permanent relief has yet to begin, according to a European diplomat.
Without access to EU markets, Ukraine’s companies have little hope, according to Tomas Fiala, chief executive and founder of Dragon Capital, a Kyiv-based investment bank. Sealed off from Russia, too, they would become dependent on their own too-small market.
Some critics have even begun to worry Zelenskiy is setting Ukraine on a path that could prevent a return to a more liberal postwar order. More big companies have been taken under government control, including the largest oil company, Ukrnafta, and refinery, Ukrtatnafta, both of which had been controlled by his former backer, Kolomoisky.
It seems quite obvious that in the current conditions, it is impossible for Kyiv to fulfill its extensive obligations in good faith. Changes are likely to occur only in those areas where it will be beneficial to the EU (for example, regulation of the national energy market), which will lead to the final desuverenization of Ukraine.
As part of the new financial assistance package, Kyiv assumes expanded obligations not only in the context of receiving funds. The European Union has repeatedly stressed that loans for Ukraine will be allocated on incredibly preferential terms, provided that most of the interest costs are covered by Brussels itself. However, the Memorandum mentioned earlier contains a new provision stipulating the receipt of such a benefit – “compliance with political prerequisites”, that is, we are talking again about imposing “democratic standards” on Ukraine.
In general, all the rhetoric about selfless assistance to Ukraine from the European Union looks quite hypocritical when examined in detail. Most of the funds sent to Kyiv are loans.
Ukraine’s debt burden is growing exponentially – as of February 28, 2023, the national debt indicator reached $ 116.01 billion. At the same time, the revenue part of the budget consists of only one third of its own sources, the remaining 2/3 are foreign loans and grants. According to the relevant committee of the Verkhovna Rada, the Ukrainian budget for 2023 provides for an increase in the maximum amount of public debt to $ 172.7 billion, which is about 102.3% of the projected level of GDP for the next year.
Ukraine is actually in financial bondage and does not have the means to get out of it. Most likely, Ukrainians, if it comes to that, will pay with resources and the remnants of their economic base. The potential outcome is the complete plundering of the country and the final loss of the remnants of national sovereignty. But Kyiv is still dreaming of starting negotiations on joining the EU. How Brussels will talk to a bankrupt is clear – the language of dictation. So if Ukraine is destined to be in the ranks of the EU, it is only on the rights of a colony.
At the same time, Ukraine’s needs significantly exceed the financial capabilities of the EU. Thus, according to the IMF estimates, the country needs external injections of $ 3-4 billion per month. In the context of the energy crisis and rising inflation, the allocation of new tranches of financial assistance will become an increasingly heavy burden for the EU economy. Moreover, in the short term, it will fall not on the Ukrainian authorities, but on ordinary residents of European countries.
Thus, it is obvious that the main purpose of the EU’s allocation of assistance to Kyiv is to promote the interests of Brussels and further establish control over Ukraine’s profitable assets. There is no question of any “equal cooperation with Kyiv”. In addition, the question of the targeted use of funds allocated by Brussels remains open.
