The Risk of An Unchecked Power That Paralyzes the Rada
By: Giorgio Provinciali
Live from Ukraine ????????
Dnipro If anti-corruption becomes a lever of political coercion, then it is no longer defending the rule of law: it is contributing to its erosion from within. A Ukraine that survives militarily but normalizes this institutional shift risks saving itself as a territorial state but losing its role as a state governed by the rule of law.
Yesterday, RBK-Ukrainepublisheda detailed, useful, and in some ways revealinganalysisof what is happening aroundNABUandSAP, the two pillars of Ukraines anti-corruption system, built under strong Western pressure since 2015. Thearticledescribesthe struggle ofMPs who are not voting out of fear of investigationsand of aEurope unable to replace Washington as the political shield for these institutions. A Servant of the People MPinterviewedclaimsthat NABU and SAP are nowtruly independentbecause the traditional American support has disappeared with Donald Trumps inauguration at the White House.
This interpretation, however, appears completely inverted.
The MP who puts it this way doesnt sound like an analyst, but rather like someone intimidated by the situation. He is among those abstaining from the Rada vote out of fear of retaliation by the very entities whose independence he publicly supports. The fact that members of the majority fear retaliation fromstructures that should, at least officially, be fighting corruption rather than paralyzing parliaments functioning isa revealing paradox.
The problem is not anti-corruption itself, but its progressive politicization.
Ive alreadyanalyzedin these pages how many in UkrainebelievethatNABU and SAP have gradually transformed into instruments of timed justice, producing interventions calibrated to the political-media cycle.
The Yermak case remains the clearest and most concerning example.
Andriy Yermak former head of the Presidential Office, a figure who for years held unprecedented informal power in post-2014 Ukrainian political history has not been convicted. He hasnt even been formally charged. Yet he no longer holds his position. Heresignedon November 28, 2025, a few hours after NABU searched his home as part ofOperation Midas, the $100 million mega-investigation into Energoatom. Hedeclaredhe was going to the front. In fact, he was never reported to any conscription station.
Was Yermak necessary to resign? Probably yes, for reasons that extend beyond the individual investigation: the concentration of power he had built was structurally incompatible with a healthy institutional balance. But thats beside the point. The real issue is who removed him and through what mechanism. Not through politics, via a democratic process. Not through a judicial verdict. Instead, it was the deterrent effect of a search, amplified by media pressure, without any formal charge or trial. In January 2026, Yermak reinstated his name in the bar association. He has no convictions. He has no charges. He is simply politically defunct, the result of an extra-procedural removal.
This is profoundly wrong. Not because Yermak was innocent or a gentleman he likely wasnt but because in a constitutional state, the removal of a public official, no matter how powerful, cannot be delegated to the public prosecutor as a proxy for politics. Accepting this principle would mean admitting thatthe anti-corruption judiciary has gained a veto over the composition of governments that no law grants it and that no liberal democracy can accept. Enough to hold parliament hostage.
The Tymoshenko case adds another layer of complexity.
In January 2026, NABU and SAPservedYulia Tymoshenko a notice of investigation for bribery of parliamentarians:accordingto the prosecution, she had offered monthly payments in exchange for favorable votes. The tapes published by the agency seem clear in substance. The problem, once again, is the context. Tymoshenko hadvotedin July 2025 in favor of the bill that would have stripped NABU and SAP of their powers, calling these bodiesinstruments of external control. The investigation into her matured immediately in the following weeks. The timeline doesnt prove the accusations false they could be entirely valid but it raises a question a constitutional state cannot afford to ignore:do anti-corruption investigations follow the evidence or the political calendar?
The issue isnt the validity of the evidence, but the selective prosecution of the case in response to a vote, a concept codified in other legal systems as selective prosecution.
Holos MP Yaroslav Yurchyshyn,interviewedby RBK-Ukraine, offers his interpretation: the crisis in the Rada majority is not due to NABU but to the mismanagement of relations between the presidency and parliament. This interpretation is only partly convincing, as it ignores the cascade of effects caused bythe Kisiel case the Servant of the People MP from Kryvyi Rih, Zelenskys hometown, caught in December 2025 in a sting operation for accepting money in exchange for votes and the resulting atmosphere.
Today, in the Rada, every second person is suspected of being a NABU infiltrator. Deputies dont vote out of fear. Parliament isnt functioning. This isnt democratic physics; its institutional paralysis caused by an investigative process that has lost its operational boundaries.
The RBK-Ukrainearticleincludes a revealing statement from a government source: with Trump, the American cap on NABU and SAP would be lifted, and Europe strategically supports these bodies but has not replaced Washington as a political shield. The implied conclusion that NABU and SAP are nowtruly independent is a fallacy of composition and a dangerous conceptual illusion. First, because the opposite is clear: with Trump in the White House, every form of American pressure has been used to influence Zelensky and his government. This includes aidsuspensions,leaksof intelligence documents, and thememocalling Zelenskya dictator without elections, among other actions. Second, even if one were to assume otherwise,the absence of an external patron does not automatically create independence but rather a vacuum of accountability.
An organization that answers to no one is not truly free; it can become uncontrollable. And an uncontrollable body, endowed with powers like wiretapping, searches, and public delegitimization, poses systemic risks regardless of the moral integrity of its officials.
Lets be clear:without NABU and SAP, the country would be even more vulnerable. Denying this would be hypocrisy. Its not even about denying corruption in Ukraine.Corruption exists, its documented, its serious, and its been greatly worsened by the war. Operation Midas is real. The Energoatom schemes are real. The need for independent investigative bodies is real. But when those same bodies start to act under political pressure, when searches happen before trials, turning them into tools of forced removal, and when the atmosphere of fear they create paralyzes parliaments work, then the remedy begins to resemble the evil it claims to fight.
The solution is not to weaken NABU and SAP that would be a gift to real corruption nor to uncritically defend them as untouchable totems. It involvesestablishing clear rules: set deadlines between searches and charges; ensure transparency in investigations involving key institutional figures; implement a robust parliamentary oversight mechanism, not for political control but to provide guarantees; and hold accountable those responsible for abuses or targeted leaks. These solutions have been discussed in reformist circles since 2016 and should be implemented during wartime.
The abstention of Servant of the People MPs isnt just cowardice; its also a form of protest. Dysfunctional, certainly. Confused, incapable of articulating an alternative proposal, and politically sterile. But its real at its core. Those who observe from the outside and provide this country with resources, weapons, and international credibility cant afford to dismiss it as mere background noise.
A Ukraine that wins the war but loses the rule of law has won nothing.
We are doing our best to provide genuine, first-hand reports from zones where almost no press dares to go. This means living constantly in a kill zone. We take the risk, but without your invaluable support, our voices would remain unheard and silent. Without brave people sharing our articles from afar, they would remain unread. Our reports would go unseen, and our efforts would be lost. Theres still a lot of work to do here, as the people around us are also in no better situation.
Were renewing our fundraising campaign and thanking everyone who joins us in helping to restore what Russia is destroying. Moving forward with only a small reimbursement for each article from a brave newspaper that believes in us is extremely challenging. Thats why we are grateful to all the kind people who support us and trust in our mission.
Even a small donation helps.
Well keep you updated on developments.
Thank you all, dear friends ????????
未受制约的权力可能瘫痪议会的风险
作者：Giorgio Provinciali
翻译：旺财球球
乌克兰前线报道????????
第聂伯罗如果反腐成为政治胁迫的工具，那么它就不再是在捍卫法治：反而是在从内部侵蚀法治。一个在军事上幸存但将这种制度性转变常态化的乌克兰，可能作为领土国家保住了自己，却失去了作为法治国家的灵魂。
昨日，《RBK-Ukraine》发表了一篇详尽、有用且在某些方面颇具揭示性的分析，讨论自2015年以来在强大西方压力下建立的乌克兰反腐体系两大支柱国家反腐局（NABU）和特别反腐检察院（SAP）周边正在发生的事情。文章描述了议员们因害怕被调查、以及欧洲未能取代华盛顿成为这些机构的政治保护伞而不敢投票的斗争，。一位接受采访的人民公仆党议员称，随着唐纳德特朗普就任白宫，传统美国支持已消失，因而NABU和SAP现在真正独立了。
然而，这种解读显然完全相反。
这位议员的话不像是分析，更像是恐惧。他属于那些因害怕被他公开支持独立的机构报复而在议会投票中弃权的人之一。多数派议员害怕原本应该打击腐败、而不是瘫痪议会运作的机构，这个事实本身就是一个极具揭示性的悖论。
问题不在于反腐本身，而在于反腐逐步被政治化。
我在此前的文章中已分析过，许多乌克兰人认为NABU和SAP逐渐变成了定时司法的工具，采取的干预与政治媒体周期相配合。
（图：我和Alla在乌克兰赫尔松战区报道????????版权所有，Giorgio Provinciali）
耶尔马克案仍是最明确且最令人担忧的例子。
安德里耶尔马克前总统办公厅主任，是乌克兰2014年后最具非正式权力的人物之一尚未被定罪，甚至未被正式起诉，但不再担任其职务。他在2025年11月28日于NABU在迈达斯行动（涉及Energoatom的1亿美元大案）中搜查其住所数小时后辞职。他宣称要去前线，实际上从未在任何征兵站报到。
耶尔马克有必要辞职吗？可能有必要，理由不仅限于个人调查：他所构建的权力集中在结构上与健康的制度平衡不兼容。但这不是问题的关键。真正的问题是：是谁、以何种机制将其免职。不是通过政治手段、没有通过民主程序，也不是通过司法判决。而是一次搜查的威慑效应，再经媒体压力的放大，在没有任何正式指控或审判的情况下，让他被迫下台。2026年1月，耶尔马克重新在律师协会登记。他没有定罪，没有指控；他只是单纯被政治除名这是一个程序外的免职结果。
这是极其错误的。并非因为耶尔马克是无辜或绅士他很可能并非如此而是因为在一个宪政国家，任何公共官员的免职，无论其职位多高，都不能由检察机关替代政治来决定。接受这种原则意味着承认反腐司法对政府组成拥有某种否决权，这是法律未曾赋予的，也是任何自由民主都无法接受的。足以把议会挟持为人质。
（图：我和Alla在乌克兰赫尔松灰色地带战事最激烈的地方报道????????版权所有，Giorgio Provinciali）
季莫申科案进一步增加了问题的复杂性。
2026年1月，NABU和SAP向尤利娅季莫申科发出了关于贿赂国会议员的调查通知：检方称她为换取有利投票提供了月度付款。该机构公布的录音在实质上似乎是明确的。但问题再次出在背景上。季莫申科在2025年7月曾投票支持一项法案，该法案将剥夺NABU和SAP的部分权力，并称这些机构为外部控制工具。对她的调查随即在接下来的几周成熟起来。时间线并不能证明指控是虚假的指控可能完全成立但它提出了一个宪政国家无法忽视的问题：反腐调查是跟随证据，还是随政治日程走？
问题不在于证据的有效性，而是调查是否因某一政治投票而被选择性启动，这一概念在其他法律体系中被称为选择性起诉。
（图：Alla和我在乌克兰赫尔松录制了这段录像版权所有，Giorgio Provinciali）
RBK-Ukraine采访的Holos党议员亚罗斯拉夫尤尔奇申提供了他的解释：议会多数派的危机并非由NABU引起，而是源于总统与议会之间关系的管理不当。这种解释只说对了一半，因为它忽略了基谢尔案引发的连锁效应基谢尔是来自克里维里赫（泽连斯基的家乡）的人民公仆党议员，2025年12月在一次诱捕行动中因收受金钱以换取投票而被抓以及由此产生的氛围。
如今在拉达，每两个议员中就有一个怀疑另一个是NABU的渗透者。议员们因为害怕而不敢投票。议会几乎无法运作。这不是民主机制，这是制度瘫痪，是失控的调查权力造成的后果。
该文还引述了一位政府消息人士的揭示性说法：在特朗普执政下，美国对NABU和SAP的天花板将被取消，欧洲在战略上支持这些机构，但并未取代华盛顿成为它们的政治盾牌。由此暗含的结论NABU和SAP现在真正独立了是一种组合谬误和危险的概念错觉。首先，事实q恰恰相反：在特朗普入主白宫的情形下，美国对泽连斯基及其政府的施压从未手软，其中包括援助中止、情报文件泄露，以及称泽连斯基为没有选举的独裁者的备忘录等行动。其次，即便假设没有外部干预，缺乏外部干预并不自动产生独立，反而可能形成问责的真空。
一个不向任何人负责的组织并非真正自由；而会变得不可控制。而一个拥有监听、搜查和公开丧失合法性等权力、却不可控制的机构，无论其官员道德如何，都构成系统性风险。
（图：Alla和我在乌克兰切尔尼戈夫的尼津录制了这段视频版权所有，Giorgio Provinciali）
明确一点：没有NABU和SAP，国家将更加脆弱。否认这一点就是虚伪。这也不是要否认乌克兰存在腐败：腐败存在、被记录、严重，而且因战争而大为加剧。迈达斯行动是真实的。Energoatom的腐败网络也是真实的。独立调查机构的必要性是真实的。但当这些机构在政治压力下行动，当搜查先于指控变成一种强制撤职工具，以及当它们制造的恐惧氛围使议会工作瘫痪时，药房开始像毒药了。
解决之道既不是削弱NABU和SAP那将是送给真正腐败势力的礼物也不是不加批判地将它们视为不可触碰的图腾。应当建立明确规则：在搜查与指控之间设定时限；确保涉及关键公职人物的调查透明；实行强有力的议会监督机制，不为政治控制而设，而是提供制度保障；并对滥用职权或有针对性的泄密者追究责任。这些解决方案自2016年以来在改革派圈子中已有讨论，应在战时予以实施。
人民公仆党议员的弃权不仅仅是懦弱；它也是一种抗议。无疑是功能失调的、令人困惑的、无法提出替代方案且在政治上毫无成效的抗议。但它在本质上是真实的。那些从外部观察并向这个国家提供资源、武器和国际信誉的人，不能把它简单地当作背景噪声而不予理会。
一个赢得战争却失去法治的乌克兰，等于什么也没赢。
（图：我在乌克兰一个公车站版权所有，Giorgio Provinciali）
***
我们尽最大努力从几乎没有媒体敢进入的地带进行真实的一手报道，这意味着我们长期生活在杀伤区。我们承担风险，但若没有你们宝贵的支持，我们的声音将无从传出。若没有远方的勇敢的人们转发分享我们的文章，它们将无人问津。我们的报道会被忽视，我们的努力将付诸流水。这里还有大量工作要做，周围的人们境况同样艰难。
我们正在更新筹款活动，感谢每一位加入我们、帮助修复俄罗斯破坏的人们。仅靠一家勇敢的报纸为我们每篇文章支付微薄稿酬以维持前线报道极为困难。因此，我们感激所有支持并信任我们使命的善良人们。
哪怕是小小的捐助也有助益。
我们会持续为你们更新事态进展。
谢谢大家，亲爱的朋友们????????
如果你认可我们的工作，请支持我们????????
在过去三年里，自乌克兰大规模战争爆发以来，作为自由撰稿人，我们一直在乌克兰战争的所有前线进行报道
Paypal捐款链接：https://www.paypal.com/pools/c/9nxoMcbYLF
