The Foundation of Ukraine’s Independence

In recent years, we have rediscovered our own country. We no longer need to prove that Ukraine is Europe or “Ukraine [is] Before All.” The lyrics of our anthem saying that “we will give up our soul and body for our freedom” have long transformed from a poetic exaggeration into our everyday reality.

When Ukraine gained independence 35 years ago, few Ukrainians, apart from those who had been consistently fighting to accomplish a state separate from the USSR, perceived it as a true victory. At the time, it seemed a given, and many people condescendingly called this independence “gifted” and accidental.

Over the past three and a half decades, we have proven that this is not a gift nor a coincidence. For all these years we have been developing our own state, step by step, one generation after another. First, its nature was clearly post-Soviet; however, year on year, the country was becoming increasingly more unique for this geopolitical region. We were building a community of people who were enthusiastically developing a new country despite mistakes, setbacks, or nostalgia for the Soviet past.

This slow, painstaking work eventually yielded the Ukraine that we know today. It has not achieved the same success as the Baltic states, and there have been many a setback. But Ukraine kept growing.

This growth continues even now, often through pain and in spite of circumstances. Now, what makes Ukraine unique is that, while it is living through horrors that most rich and influential countries no longer know, it keeps confidently standing on the foundation created by the wondrously stubborn Ukrainian people.

What makes this foundation, then?

1. A Strong Army

The army as the basis for the state’s existence is no longer a question for us. A strong army means a strong country. And now, there is a whole generation that no longer remembers a time when this idea would be perceived very differently.

For years, the Armed Forces were systematically undermined. What was left from the USSR was gradually declining, and the cracks were filled with total corruption, hazing, and enemy insiders in a structure that was meant to guarantee the safety of the independent state.

But in 2014, this decline stopped. What changed was a new generation and a mental breakthrough: before the war with Russia began, the army was still not fully destroyed. Furthermore, with the first enemy strikes, a new military force emerged and began to grow.

Today, the Ukrainian army is one of the strongest ones in the world. Despite exhaustion from the hardest war in the past 80 years, it is highly flexible, tech-savvy, and adaptive.

The Ukrainian warriors are consistently doing something that nobody would expect 20 years ago. But this is an army with numerous internal problems, both old and new ones. Problems that should have been resolved in the past years and that are now slowing down the army’s development, facilitating abuse and corruption. These challenges are then inherited by new commanders-in-chief and ministers of defense.

This needs to change because that’s the only way that we can beat the enemy and defend our country.

2. A Strong Civil Society

Many times, I’ve heard that our civil society is an item of sincere envy in many developed countries. However, it’s not easy to explain to them what difficulties we’ve had to face over the years of our independence so far.

The strong position of Ukraine’s society was forged not through somebody’s instructions or some incentives; it was a natural response to the authorities’ lawlessness. It was meant to be a counteraction rather than an innovation. The Kuchma-Free Ukraine public campaign, the Orange Revolution, the Revolution of Dignity, “cardboard protests” during the full-scale war are not about civic activism but rather about the consistent formation of our civic identity, which, in turn, gradually formed the political nation.

And this process actually makes complete sense, since forming a political nation takes motivation, knowledge, and experience. We have gained ours at the highest cost.

In 2004, people took to the streets to defend their choice of the president. In 2013, they first wanted to defend Ukraine’s vector of European integration, discarded by Yanukovych, and later united against abuse of power by “law enforcement.” This was also when the first blood was shed, which scared us but also made us stronger. It also highlighted the need for changes that civil society is still championing to this day: a judicial reform, a reform of law enforcement, and systematic anti-corruption activities.

Euromaidan thus resulted in a major anti-corruption reform, and its participants were among the first volunteers to fight against Russia to later come back and take part in building new democratic institutions. Today, most of these people are on the front lines once again. Unfortunately, many have been killed by Russia. But the remaining ones stand strong and are joined by the youth, who no longer remember the pains of Kuchma’s times or the hopelessness of the era of golden bread loaves.

Over 35 years, civil society in Ukraine has transformed from ad hoc gatherings to a systematic, flexible force, which not only protests but also offers solutions, supports, and helps the state. It fills the gaps where the government comes short. And this can be observed at every level, from protecting a local park against illegal construction to large campaigns to defend the NABU and the SAPO’s independence during the war.

I have been saying all along that I will be happy when civil society organizations no longer have work to do because the system will function as needed on its own. However, so far, so much remains to be done. This includes the issue of corruption.

3. Systemic Action against Corruption

The anti-corruption reform is not a “commission” from the West; it is a direct requirement of society formed during the Revolution of Dignity. Real dignity is incompatible with corruption, and real democracy cannot exist in a rotten government system.

During the past 12 years, Ukraine has managed to create an effective anti-corruption system, under enormous pressure and often with resistance from “political elites.” The system ended up so strong that it continues to function even during the war and with total resistance from those in power.

Come to think of it, this is actually an incredible accomplishment by Ukraine during its independence. The existence of dedicated anti-corruption agencies is not mandatory and does not indicate the strength of the state; this is rather ensured by government institutions, the Central Electoral Commission, the Constitutional Court, the Supreme Court, and other basic institutions. But for us, anti-corruption agencies became the guarantors that Ukraine’s statehood would be preserved overall and remain strong despite pressure from internal and external factors.

What is crucial here is that the formation of anti-corruption institutions has consistently been a response to the demands of society; that is why these agencies are accountable not so much to the state as to the public, as seen in the most recent high-profile investigations of the NABU and the SAPO.

Corruption is like erosion; it permeates wherever it can reach and affects even those who recently seemed to be immune to it. Only systematic eradication and prevention can help to beat corruption in full.

The NABU, the SAPO, and the HACC, established as the result of the reform, show how this can be done. If the authorities truly want to fulfill the European integration commitments they have been claiming over the past years, they only need to strengthen anti-corruption institutions and refrain from interfering in their work. The work has already started, and those investigated by the NABU and the SAPO confirm themselves that they have no “entry points” with either agency and cannot reach any “agreement” with them. So, no matter how much certain characters are trying to become “leaders” at corruption, this plan fails.

But the established anti-corruption system not only punishes for violations but also works on limiting opportunities to commit them. Alongside the NABU and the SAPO, which investigate corruption, and the HACC, which reviews the results of these investigations and issues verdicts, there’s also the NACP, which determines the state’s anti-corruption policy. Mandatory public procurement, open state registers, and digital services have been implemented. Now everyone can receive the necessary document or service transparently, without bribes or connections.

This does not mean that every process functions without a glitch: they need to be updated, strengthened, optimized, tidied up, and during the war, new challenges keep emerging. But the work that has already been done still produces quality results. When over 58% of Ukrainians have a fully negative view of corruption in the fifth year of the full-scale war, this is a major indicator of our maturity and our future.

***

Since 2023, Ukrainians have named war and corruption as the main problems of the country in nearly every opinion poll. Therefore, the current pillars of the state are the army and anti-corruption bodies — and civil society, integrated into the Armed Forces of Ukraine and in support of the anti-corruption system.

Still, citizens remain the foundation of any society. There are still many things that we don’t know for certain about modern Ukrainians. But what we know for sure is that over these 35, years they have undoubtedly begun to identify as Europeans and see no other way than to unite with the global West.

35 years ago, it was probably much more difficult to make this claim. But we all want reforms that will change the country for the better.

Today, Ukrainians as a community, as well as each one, are the building blocks of this country. Yes, we are imperfect, but we keep fighting; we seek pathways for development and look into the equal European future. And we always stand by our country, young as it is.

This publication has been produced with financial support from Norway. The contents of this publication are the sole responsibility of Transparency International Ukraine and can in no way be taken to reflect the views of the Government of Norway.