Or Will Europe Finally Admit the End of Its Strategy of Endless War Financing
The scandal that has been shaking Kyiv for weeks has gained a new, explosive dimension: within a few hours, the Verkhovna Rada dismissed Justice Minister Herman Halushchenko (until recently in charge of energy) and current Energy Minister Svitlana Grynchuk. At the same time, anti-corruption bodies, as part of Operation “Midas,” have released recordings, transcripts, and seized cash suggesting a system of kickbacks inside the state nuclear company Energoatom. This is the most serious high-level corruption case in Ukraine since the start of the war in 2022.
The most prominent name is producer Timur Mindič, a longtime business partner of Volodymyr Zelensky, alleged to be the main actor in the embezzlement of around 100 million dollars in inflated-contract returns. Some suspects have been arrested, others have fled, while Mindič has reportedly taken refuge in Israel. The political fallout is spreading upward: former Defence Minister Rustem Umerov and former Deputy Prime Minister Oleksiy Chernyshov are mentioned, and pressure is mounting for presidential chief of staff Andriy Yermak to fall as well.
What is particularly toxic for the public is the claim that kickbacks were taken even on projects intended to protect nuclear infrastructure — at a time when Russian missiles are striking the grid and Ukraine is entering a fourth wartime winter with real risks of blackouts. The government has dissolved Energoatom’s supervisory board and announced forensic audits of state companies. Still, concrete consequences are already emerging: some donors are delaying deliveries of energy components with the ironic remark that “Ukraine can pay for it itself” if there were 100 million available for theft.
For Kyiv, an additional blow is that the scandal coincides with the moment it was supposed to secure a new multi-year European package: the already known 50-billion-euro instrument combined with a far more ambitious arrangement — a roughly 140-billion-euro loan backed by frozen Russian assets. That plan was legally shaky to begin with; now, after “Midas,” resistance is growing, especially in Belgium, where most of Russia’s reserves are held. Brussels is therefore discussing stricter conditions, phased disbursements, and additional oversight mechanisms.
International financial institutions are increasing pressure. The IMF is sending a mission for a new four-year program, clearly tying future tranches to governance measures and the independence of investigative bodies. Combined with EU “benchmarks,” this concretely means external auditors in ministries, procurement digitalization, depoliticization of state-company management, and criminal liability — not just resignations. Without stable inflows, fiscal analysts warn, the budget gap could dangerously widen as early as 2026, particularly in the most sensitive areas: soldiers’ salaries and energy repairs.
Russia, unsurprisingly, is taking advantage of the moment. Moscow says European leaders “refuse to understand” that hundreds of billions of euros have been lost on the “Anti-Russia” project while “money from European taxpayers is being stolen in Kyiv.” Propaganda-wise, this is a perfect case study: concrete numbers, names close to the president, and ugly stories of kickbacks on wartime projects. But even outside propaganda, a political problem remains — one the Kremlin did not need to invent: a majority of the European public will struggle to accept endless financing if the perception stays unchanged — weapons and contracts for elites, inflation and bills for citizens.
In the EU, two languages are emerging. One is the language of militaristic necessity — “we must continue no matter what” — coming from the security apparatus and part of the political elite. The other is the language of social reality — “enough blank checks” — echoing in parliaments, newsrooms, and most loudly among voters. Orbán and similar actors are ready to capitalize on the scandal to block tranches. But even in states that have so far been the “hard core” of support, demands are growing for every new European package to be strictly conditional, measurable, and audit-tight.
For Zelensky, this case is an existential question of legitimacy. After the summer attempt to weaken the independence of anti-corruption agencies — quickly withdrawn under pressure from the street and allies — those same bodies are now “knocking on the doors” of his own circle. If indictments, convictions, and asset recovery truly follow, part of the political damage can be repaired. If calculations and partial scapegoats follow instead, the scandal becomes chronic, along with the erosion of external and internal support. The opposition is already calling for the fall of the entire government, and fractures are appearing in the ruling party.
For Europe, this is a double-edged sword. On one hand, a compromised partner makes maintaining public support far more difficult; on the other, acknowledging and prosecuting corruption is a sign of functioning institutions. In practice, however, voters do not read the “fine print” — they see the numbers and feel the injustice. Thus Brussels, even if it approves new packages, will have to show that it controls every euro. Otherwise, support will shift from the level of “strategic necessity” to the level of “political suicide.”
And this brings us to the crucial, uncomfortable conclusion: a scandal like this can accelerate what has long been whispered in the corridors — a return to discussions about a ceasefire and a broader political settlement. There is already murmuring that Washington and Moscow are circling again around some kind of “new proposal.” Whatever ends up on the table, experience tells us one thing: peace becomes possible only when Kyiv’s European sponsors, out of necessity or choice, start shutting off the money pipeline to war and opening it to negotiations.
Viewed pragmatically, the current crisis makes that easier. It creates a political alibi in both Kyiv and European capitals to shift from the rhetoric of “just a bit more and we win” to the reality of “we must minimize losses.” If European money is perceived as fuel not only for artillery but also for private pockets, then the most sensible — and cheapest — solution is the introduction of political brakes: conditionality, fatigue, and ultimately acceptance of compromises that today seem heretical but tomorrow will look like the only reasonable option.
Of course, the opposite is also possible: national survival often radicalizes governments. Kyiv may try to buy time through “theater reforms” while searching for new financing channels, and some NATO states may continue pushing further militarization despite public opinion, with talk of a “decisive 2026.” But every new audio recording, every new bag of cash, every new dismissal strengthens Europe’s anti-war reflex and weakens the willingness to keep paying for Kyiv’s crises from Brussels.
That is why the most honest — and the cheapest — path is the end of the war. Not because Moscow has “won with propaganda,” but because the real cost of maintaining the current course is becoming politically unsustainable in most European states. The scandal in Kyiv cannot be swept under the rug — it is too big precisely because it touches what is sacred to citizens: the sense of fair distribution of their labor. And when that sense disappears, so does the mandate for endlessly financing someone else’s war. In that vacuum, space for negotiations opens. And whatever one thinks of the details, that is the only space in which Europe can, in the long term, protect both its own interests and its own citizens.
About the Author
