Brussels -Loans to Ukraine, at a time when Ukraine and its leadership are overwhelmed with accusations of corruption. The European Union must confront an increasingly complex reality, and a situation from which retreating is not an option. Reparation loans designed for Kyiv, through Russian assets frozen in Europe, are raising concerns, so far subtle but real, around the table of the Twenty-Seven.
A real criminal organisation allegedly involved in embezzlement in the energy sector has been set up in Ukraine. According to anti-corruption bodies, the criminal network has already pocketed some USD 100 million (approximately USD 86 million). In these activities, the names of Energoatom, the national nuclear operator, and, above all, the ministers of Justice and Energy, Herman Halushchenko and Svitlana Grynchuk, who were removed from office by the Ukrainian president, Volodymyr Zelensky, stand out.
From the European side comes the condemnation of the EU’s High Representative for Foreign and Security Policy, Kaja Kallas, who calls the affair “extremely regrettable.” “There can be no room for corruption,” she said, least of all now, in the midst of a war and an accession process seen as progressing smoothly, which demands clear and precise reforms from Kyiv.
https://www.eunews.it/2025/10/23/zelensky-al-consiglio-europeo/
Zelensky intervened by demanding and securing the dismissal of the two ministers involved, which is undoubtedly good for him and his country. However, doubts remain. After all, reasons out loud, Kristunas Vaitiekunas, Lithuania’s finance minister, “what are the options? Ukraine is the only option.” The Ecofin Council meeting is inevitably affected by the corruption scandal in Ukraine. Still, according to Lithuania, as long as the war between Kyiv and Moscow continues, European support must also continue.
Eelko Heinen, the Dutch Minister of Finance, tries to downplay it and minimize its significance: “The fight against corruption is a challenge that Ukraine still has to continue to work against,” he cuts it short before taking part in the proceedings in Brussels.
Can money be provided to those accused of corruption, who are then entrusted with managing the funds received? This is the dilemma hanging over the European Union, whose member states, however, seem compelled to yield to the necessities of an ongoing conflict. No one is questioning support for Ukraine. Thus, the Nordics and Baltics are advocating a reparation loan scheme through frozen Russian assets. For Finnish Finance Minister Riikka Purra, it is the only way to avoid burdening national budgets. Lithuania agrees with this stance, and the EU Council also believes that reparation loans via Russian assets are “the best option.” Of course, admits Copenhagen’s Finance Minister Stephanie Lose, “there are issues to be resolved,” but this does not detract from the fact that “I am optimistic about the ability to find a solution,” perhaps as early as the next leaders’ summit in December (18-19 December).
Then there is the third option: to “grant a reparation loan based on frozen Russian assets.” This approach would rely on the cash balance of the frozen assets. “We would grant a loan to Ukraine, which Ukraine would repay if Russia paid war reparations.” If. For von der Leyen, “this is the most effective way to support Ukraine’s defense and economy, and the clearest way to show Russia that time is not on its side,” but it remains subject to the test of reality. If Moscow does not pay, the EU is left holding a non-performing loan. The corruption and embezzlement scandal in Ukraine erupts at perhaps the least opportune moment.
