Silence is no longer an option: the West must rethink its Ukraine policy
This article is an Editorial. That means it is published on behalf of the entire editorial team and reflects the collective position of all European Pravda journalists. We reserve this format for truly exceptional cases.
* * * * *
The events of the past week have been a watershed moment – both for many Ukrainians and for friends of Ukraine abroad. Fortunately, there is now reason to hope we will avoid catastrophic consequences for Ukraine and its European future.
The shock caused by the attempt of the president and his team to kill off the independence of the National Anti-Corruption Bureau (NABU) and the Specialised Anti-Corruption Prosecutor’s Office (SAPO), as well as the massive support that the bill restricting them received in parliament and the way it was passed, quickly gave way to expectations that the Ukrainian authorities would rectify their mistake. Not only did opposition MPs respond, but the president himself submitted a bill to repeal the controversial provisions. The speaker called an extraordinary session of parliament for 31 July, and pro-president MPs, who just three days earlier had voted to undermine NABU, began posting messages claiming they had "made a mistake" and were ready to fix it.
But we must not forget what happened in between these developments.
We must not forget what made Kyiv back down.
Because what Ukrainian officials, including the president, said and did initially showed that reversing course was not their intention.
There were two reasons that forced President Zelenskyy to change direction and agree to reverse a law that would have seriously jeopardised Ukraine’s future within Europe.
The most visible reason was public pressure.
Thousands of people spontaneously took to the streets in cities across Ukraine, demanding that the president, and by extension the government, stop the blatant attack on Ukraine’s anti-corruption institutions and on democracy itself. This took the president’s office by surprise.
They realised that these were not partisan or politically orchestrated protests. The threats posed by the bill were unacceptable to many, many Ukrainians. The scale of the protests also revealed that the section of society that sees democracy, combating corruption and, especially, European integration as essential is much broader than some had assumed.
Still, the influence of the streets should not be overstated. The president still signed the law, ignoring the protests that were already underway.
There was another reason for Zelenskyy's U-turn – one that was even more surprising and more significant.
It was the pressure from Ukraine’s Western partners.
What shocked the president and the government even more was the unanimous condemnation of the attack on NABU by our European partners, and to a lesser extent by the United States.
Of course Zelenskyy knew that the "NABU law", which he had personally ordered to be pushed through parliament and swiftly signed (despite the spontaneous street protests already erupting), violated one of Ukraine’s core commitments to the EU. He also knew that his attempts to frame it as a measure to combat "Russian influence" wouldn’t convince the Ukrainian public or any Western embassy.
And yet the president’s team was confident there would be no harsh criticism.
This is not something that’s usually said out loud, but it is a fact: since 2022, there has been an unofficial moratorium on criticising Ukraine and its government on the part of European politicians. Only a few figures with dubious reputations, such as Viktor Orbán, have spoken out aggressively against Kyiv, but their opinions largely go ignored by other governments. Mainstream European leaders have strictly adhered to this unwritten rule.
Not only that – in many European capitals, even private criticism of Kyiv behind closed doors has been considered ill-timed.
Because of the war. Because one shouldn’t hand ammunition to Ukraine’s enemies. Because Kyiv must be supported unconditionally.
We've seen this repeatedly, and so has Zelenskyy, watching the European Commission remain silent even in the most egregious cases.
Even a breach of the law as overt and flagrant as refusing to appoint the duly selected head of the Bureau of Economic Security went unremarked by Brussels. EU officials went so far as to "tidy up" their selection of photographs to avoid giving the impression that Commissioner Marta Kos had sided with some critics of Kyiv. (We covered this in our article Ukraine is "forgiven" its reforms.)
Similarly, the West accepted the then energy minister Herman Halushchenko’s rollback of corporate governance reforms without comment. A European regulator attempted – without Brussels’ approval – to quietly pressure Kyiv, only to backtrack immediately.
Here’s another example, more "expert-level" but very telling: the annual EU Association Implementation Report published by the European Commission in 2024 should have sounded alarm bells. This report is drafted not by politicians, but by EU bureaucrats, and it could not conceal the reality: Ukraine’s reforms had stalled to the point that at this pace, achieving readiness for membership was simply not possible. Yet Brussels, ignoring its own data, continued to make unsubstantiated claims about the "significant progress" Ukraine had made in its reforms.
No wonder Kyiv came to believe it was immune from criticism.
But that immunity has proved far from absolute.
At the start of this week, as the attack on NABU and SAPO began, Ukraine’s partners initially reacted the way they always had. The signals they sent to Kyiv were unconvincing, just as the President’s Office had expected.
But the adoption of Law 12414, its lightning-fast signing by the president, and the first official communication, indicating the intention to see it through, crossed a red line. Especially considering the public backlash on a scale unseen since the start of the full-scale invasion, which European leaders could not ignore.
There were calls and messages from Ukraine’s partners. Letters warning of potential financial losses. And finally, direct threats of political consequences from key EU capitals – the very same ones that just a day earlier had been willing to tolerate almost anything from Kyiv.
What exactly made Europe change course? Was it the scale of the changes? The speed with which they were pushed through? The cynical falsehoods coming from Zelenskyy? Or all of the above?
The question remains open, but in fact, it doesn’t really matter. What matters most is that the West learns from this episode.
The moratorium on criticism that has been in place for the past three and a half years had a rationale for Ukraine’s allies. They were trying to shield Ukraine from attacks, avoid fuelling propaganda, support Kyiv in its EU aspirations, and so on. That certainly made sense at the start of the journey.
But a total absence of criticism harms Ukraine. It undermines reforms. It kills the future.
We appreciate our friends’ willingness to help Ukraine. But one important way to help is by being honest.
The events of recent days, when criticism from our Western partners was the decisive, most impactful factor that convinced the president and his team to end their attack on Ukraine’s anti-corruption institutions, are a vivid illustration of the fact that our partners need to change their tactics and their policies in dealing with Ukraine.
For many years, up until 2022, their frankness, critical evaluation of Kyiv’s actions, and pressure when justified, were among the key drivers of reform in our country.
European Pravda calls on the embassies of Western countries and the governments of our European allies to reconsider their approach.
A reformed Ukraine, embedded within Europe and governed by the rule of law, is essential both to us, the citizens of Ukraine, and to our partner states. Ukraine’s civil society and independent media remain prepared to continue driving the changes that need to be made in order to achieve that goal. Your honesty in dealing with Kyiv will help us get there.
The Editorial Board of European Pravda