When the European Commission assessed Ukraine's progress on its path to the European Union in November, the "anti-corruption block" was the only one with substantial questions in Brussels.

So, is the situation really that critical? Is there any progress? Or perhaps those who believe that Ukraine has entered a period of "self-flagellation," exaggerating the problem to a level that does not correspond to reality, have a point?

To answer some of these questions, the EU Anti-Corruption Initiative (EUACI) in partnership with EuroPravda organised an online meeting Kyiv – Brussels, co-organised by the authoritative Brussels center CEPS.

Read more about the corruption in Ukraine in the artcle by the editor of European Pravda, Sergiy Sydorenko – Mythology of Bribery: Is Corruption Main Problem of Ukraine on Its way to EU.

Ukraine has eventually met all the EU anti-corruption requirements as part of the seven conditions, which is now beyond doubt. The Ukrainian parliament passed the latest legislative requirements with a constitutional majority, and the president immediately signed them. Anti-corruption activists, usually critical of the government's actions, also speak about meeting the condition.

But everyone agrees that there are even more homework ahead.

The discussion looked sometimes controversial. Everyone talked about Ukraine's impressive successes in combating corruption. But what to do with the rankings where Ukraine is almost the most corrupt country in the region?

Moreover, even in Transparency International itself, they do not deny Kyiv's successes. "In many ways, Ukraine is ahead of the EU," acknowledged Roland Papp, a representative of Brussels Transparency International, in the discussion.

The root of the problem is that the "perception of corruption" by Ukrainians paints a much worse picture. Even those who have not encountered corruption in recent years can say in surveys that they definitely know about the "total corruption" of the state.

"We have a paradoxical situation," says Olena Halushka, a member of the Anti-Corruption Action Center board. "When NABU and SAP show good results and detain someone, it is often perceived not as a positive sign – 'the anti-corruption infrastructure is working well,' but as confirmation of concern – as if, 'oh my God, look how much corruption there is in Ukraine, how can one work here?'"

But even European officials who are aware of this problem say that Ukraine has no other way but to continue combating corruption.

Society should first trust in work and prosecutions of NABU and SAP.

"The corruption perception index does not necessarily provide an accurate picture of the level of corruption. Perception is also influenced by the media and social media. In Ukraine with free and critical media, cases of corruption take a leading place in the information space compared to many other countries," explains Allan Pagh Kristensen, head of the EU Anti-Corruption Initiative in Ukraine (EUACI).

Although revolutionary ideas are also voiced.

Romanian and pan-European anti-corruption expert, Professor Alina Mungiu-Pippidi, who was once associated with the so-called Romanian anti-corruption miracle, warned Ukraine not to focus too much on "appointments" so as not to build a practice of selective prosecution.

Another problem that is not often pointed out in anti-corruption efforts is that in a state with widespread corruption, such as Ukraine, it is impossible to build an anti-corruption system through convictions since judges reflect society. "If the judicial system is part of the problem, it cannot be part of the solution."

How to break out of this vicious circle?

Only through long-term work. Through the implementation of judicial reform, which should take years because otherwise, it will not be of high quality. Also, Alina Mungiu-Pippidi advises to use more non-judicial (but, of course, legal) methods of combating corruption. For example, as a punishment, dismiss from the position due to suspicion of corruption.