Zelensky's Anti-Corruption Law Sparks Ukraine's First Major Wartime Protests

In late July 2024, thousands of Ukrainians took to the streets of Kyiv, Lviv, and Dnipro in the first significant mass protests since Russia’s full-scale invasion began. The demonstrations weren’t calling for peace with Russia or an end to the war—they were protesting their own government. The target of their anger was draft law no. 12414, legislation that critics argue would dismantle Ukraine’s independent anti-corruption institutions and concentrate power in the hands of President Volodymyr Zelensky.

The Kyiv Independent, in a scathing editorial, declared that “Zelensky just betrayed Ukraine’s democracy—and everyone fighting for it.” What followed was a political crisis that forced the Ukrainian president into a hasty retreat, but not before raising serious questions about democratic backsliding in a nation fighting for its survival against an autocratic neighbor.

Echoes of the Maidan: A Familiar Scene in Kyiv

The images from Tuesday and Wednesday nights in central Kyiv carried an eerie resemblance to footage from over a decade earlier. Young people crowded onto Maidan square, thousands of Ukrainians waving placards and protesting what they perceived as a power grab from an increasingly autocratic president. Yet closer inspection revealed the differences from November 2013.

Key Takeaways

In late July 2024, thousands of Ukrainians protested in Kyiv, Lviv, and Dnipro against draft law no. 12414, marking the first significant mass demonstrations since Russia’s full-scale invasion began in 2022.
Draft law no. 12414 gave the prosecutor-general—a presidential appointee—direct oversight of Sapo and the ability to quash investigations by Nabu, effectively ending the independence of Ukraine’s key anti-corruption institutions established after the 2013-2014 Maidan Revolution.
The government justified the law by claiming Nabu and Sapo harbored Kremlin spies, though critics argued this was a pretext to protect Zelensky’s allies who were under investigation by these agencies.
The protests were spontaneous, peaceful, and driven by ordinary citizens rather than organized political opposition, with chants of ‘Ukraine is not Russia’ and signs reading ‘F*ck corruption’—not calls for peace with Russia as some commentators falsely claimed.
Facing unprecedented public backlash and warnings from Western partners including the EU and US Senator Lindsey Graham, Zelensky backpedaled within days, promising to submit new legislation restoring the agencies’ independence.

Mobile phones were ubiquitous, far more common than in the early 2010s. The heavy police presence that characterized the bitter winter days of the Maidan Revolution was notably absent. But what remained constant was the sense of anger and betrayal, the feeling that Ukraine’s future was being sold out.

This time, however, the target wasn’t former President Viktor Yanukovych, but rather the actions of a man celebrated throughout the Western world: Volodymyr Zelensky. For anyone who remembered the spring of 2022, such a development would seem shocking. Since leading Ukraine’s resistance to Russia’s full-scale invasion, Zelensky had been transformed from a mere politician into an icon—a symbol for all democracies threatened by autocracies, from Estonia to Taiwan.

The accusations against his government were equally surprising: that he had betrayed Ukraine’s democracy and everyone fighting for it.

The Law That Sparked a Crisis

Draft law no. 12414 represented a fundamental threat to Ukraine’s post-Maidan institutional architecture. The legislation gave the prosecutor-general, himself a presidential appointee, direct oversight of Sapo and the ability to quash investigations launched by Nabu. This change would effectively kill the much-vaunted independence of Ukraine’s only serious anti-corruption institutions.

The mood among Ukraine’s population turned sour and angry, leading to the first significant demonstrations of the entire war. Government critics alleged the law would transform Ukraine from a true democracy into something closer to Viktor Orban’s Hungary. The passage of the law was rushed through parliament at extraordinary speed.

According to journalist Christopher Miller, the president’s office ordered members of parliament back to the capital for an urgent session on Tuesday, with MPs from Zelensky’s ruling faction told that “the boss” was watching closely and noting any opposition. The bill was pushed through in a matter of hours, catching many by surprise with its speed and scope.

The Buildup: Weeks of Mounting Concerns

The threat of a power grab had been quietly building for weeks before the law’s passage. On July 17th, the Financial Times published a piece questioning whether Ukraine’s government was drifting towards authoritarianism. The article highlighted sanctions levied against Zelensky’s political opponents, including former president Petro Poroshenko, and raids by the security service (known as the SBU) targeting anti-corruption campaigners.

These raids were carried out without court-issued warrants, which would only be legal if the targets were involved in treasonous activity linked to Russia. While the SBU did accuse some detainees of being in the Kremlin’s pocket, others were detained for things like traffic violations dating back years. The Kyiv Independent drily noted that the SBU “did not go into detail on how traffic accidents are linked to Russia.”

Among those arrested was prominent Zelensky critic and anti-graft activist Vitaliy Shabunin. The arrests came against the backdrop of a government shakeup in mid-July that promoted loyalists and yes-men, and reportedly came close to unseating the independent-minded spy chief General Budanov, whom the Economist described as “one of a dwindling few able to tell the president hard truths.” Even before the controversial law passed, the Financial Times wrote that these developments had “led to accusations that President Volodymyr Zelenskyy’s government is sliding into authoritarianism.”

Understanding Nabu and Sapo: The Maidan’s Legacy

Watch on WarFronts

Watch the full video analysis on the WarFronts YouTube channel, presented by Simon Whistler.

To understand why the law provoked such fury, it’s essential to grasp what Nabu and Sapo represent in Ukrainian history. In the aftermath of the Maidan Revolution of 2013 to 2014, one of the protesters’ biggest victories was the establishment of independent institutions designed to fight corruption. The National Anti-Corruption Bureau (Nabu) and the Specialised Anti-Corruption Prosecutor’s Office (Sapo) were able to do what no Ukrainian institution had ever done before: investigate high-ranking people in government without fear of being shut down.

Post-Soviet Ukraine was a place where accountability wasn’t really a thing. As a former Ukrainian army officer who posts on X under the name Tatarigami explained, “One of the core issues in Ukraine has been that presidents appointed loyalists to key institutions like the Prosecutor General’s Office, the Ministry of Internal Affairs, and the Security Service. These appointees could bury investigations that were politically inconvenient.”

Nabu and Sapo eliminated this threat. While there was grumbling that they didn’t function as well as hoped, they could point to a string of prosecutions of politicians, judges, and other powerful people that demonstrated they remained independent. That independence lasted until Tuesday morning, when the new law was rushed through parliament.

The Government’s Justification: Russian Spies or Convenient Excuse?

The obvious question surrounding the law was: why would Zelensky target two anti-corruption agencies he once championed, agencies that the European Union insisted Ukraine establish as a condition for one day joining the bloc? The authorities’ version centered on claims that Nabu and Sapo had been harboring Kremlin spies. According to the SBU, one of Nabu’s head detectives, Ruslan Mahamedrasulov, was linked to both the Russian government and a drug syndicate operating out of the Russian republic of Dagestan.

Others at the agencies were accused of working with disgraced Ukrainian politicians known to be in Moscow’s pocket. No one outside the government has access to the evidence the SBU is using, making it impossible to definitively dismiss the possibility that Moscow managed to infiltrate two agencies with broad leeway to investigate government members. However, critics pointed out that Russian spies had previously been uncovered in other agencies—including the SBU itself—without the government ever reacting by shutting them down.

As the heads of the anti-corruption group AutoMaidan noted, “Russian moles could work at any government agency but it (is) not a valid reason for destroying the NABU as an institution.”

The Alternative Explanation: Protecting Zelensky’s Inner Circle

A more obvious reason for the law, according to government opponents, related to ongoing investigations into Zelensky’s allies. Nabu claimed it had just started investigating close Zelensky associates like former deputy prime minister Oleksiy Chernyshov and a relative of one of the president’s old friends from his TV producer days. Sapo was also said to be looking into members of Zelensky’s inner circle.

The accusation, then, was that Zelensky was trampling Ukraine’s institutions to save his friends—institutions built up on the bodies of the protesters who were killed on the Maidan in 2014. Arrested anti-corruption activist Vitaliy Shabunin told the Times of London: “After these events, I feel like Ukraine is no longer a full-fledged democracy. It feels more like a hybrid regime, still democratic, but with elements of authoritarianism and kleptocracy.”

This perception triggered the public backlash on Tuesday and Wednesday nights. Zelensky had been elected in 2019 at least partly on his message of “victory over corruption.” To see the self-styled Servant of the People become instead the “servant of his corrupt friends” was what drove people into the streets.

The Protests: Spontaneous, Peaceful, and Decidedly Pro-Ukraine

Kyiv, Lviv, and Dnipro all saw vast protests, with both ordinary people and soldiers taking part. Chants such as “Ukraine is not Russia!” were heard at rallies, while others simply held signs saying “F*ck corruption.”

Interestingly, the protests didn’t directly target Zelensky himself. Instead, chants seemed to focus on the head of the presidential office, Andriy Yermak. Some observers on social media pointed out this seemed to smack of the old trope of “good Tsar, bad advisor,” when all evidence pointed to Zelensky himself favoring the new bill.

What the protests categorically were not—and this point requires emphasis—were calls for striking a peace deal with Russia. Some commentators, including US House Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene, claimed on social media that these protests represented an outpouring of public desire to surrender to Russia and strike a peace deal favoring Moscow. Such an interpretation is only possible through either cynical misrepresentation or complete ignorance of the situation on the ground.

A reporter on the ground for the Tuesday protest in Kyiv emphasized the anger people were feeling while noting that people were aware Russia would try to use the situation for its own ends. The reporter stated: “This moment plays straight into the hands of Russian propaganda and Ukraine-sceptics alike – those eager to cast doubt on the legitimacy of our authorities or to question whether Ukraine is a democracy worth backing. And Russia will use it to push the narrative that standing with us is pointless.”

Despite knowing this, Ukrainians were still willing to protest because they were so utterly disgusted with the bill. As the reporter explained: “People are furious, to put it mildly. And the public response was immediate and spontaneous.

You could see thousands flooding the streets all across Ukraine (…) the protests were driven by ordinary people – not coordinated by political parties or prominent figures.”

The European Dimension: Jeopardizing Ukraine’s Future

Beyond sheer disgust at the president amassing power and licensing corruption, there were serious worries about the knock-on effects the bill could have. Establishing Nabu and Sapo was a critical step on Ukraine’s long and torturous path towards membership of the European Union. Ending their independence put the country’s European future at risk.

The EU’s enlargement commissioner, Marta Kos, wrote on X: “Seriously concerned over today’s vote in the Rada. The dismantling of key safeguards protecting NABU’s independence is a serious step back.” One of the constants in Ukrainian history over the last decade and a half has been a desire among people to pull closer to Europe.

It was Yanukovych vetoing an association agreement with the EU that triggered the original Maidan protests back in 2013. For Zelensky to imperil Kyiv’s European trajectory was almost guaranteed to cause a reaction. The bill also threatened Ukraine’s standing with other Western partners.

Republican Senator Lindsey Graham, a staunch Ukraine supporter, pointed out what an own goal the bill represented, saying: “One of the most widely used talking points for ending support for Ukraine is that it was awash with corruption.”

Western Complicity: The Context Behind the Power Grab

Things like this bill don’t happen in a vacuum, and there are reasons to believe that Ukraine’s western partners may have indirectly encouraged Zelensky in his power grab. On the American side, the return of Donald Trump to the White House coincided with the US losing all interest in encouraging Ukraine to pursue reform. On the European side, there has been a tendency to equate Zelensky with the country he leads and refrain from criticizing him in case it helps Russia. The point, however, is that Ukraine is not Russia—a country where a single man’s word really is the law.

Ukraine’s democracy is far bigger than just its current president. And it now appears that Zelensky was being forced to learn this the hard way.

The Retreat: Zelensky Forced to Backpedal

Already, the mass protests forced Zelensky to backpedal. On July 24th, Ukraine’s leader declared he would submit a bill to the parliament restoring the two agencies’ independence. According to the Kyiv Independent, “In a statement following its review of the new draft law, NABU said the legislation would ‘restore all procedural powers and guarantees of independence’ for both NABU and SAPO.”

With the Rada in recess, it should have been impossible to vote on this bill until late August. However, as the situation developed, there were rumblings that an emergency session would be called to quickly rush a vote through. Ukraine, it seemed, had stepped back from the brink.

Still, the entire episode raised serious questions about Zelensky’s judgment. For no sensible reason, Ukraine’s president triggered a massive political crisis just at a moment when future international support was in question and Russia was grinding forward on the battlefield. Even considering Zelensky a hero, there was no getting around the fact that this was a supremely stupid thing to do.

At best, it was an indefensible attempt to counter possible Russian spying by destroying the independence of two agencies. At worst, it was an attempt to exert autocratic control over a democratic nation—to make Ukraine into a cut-price Hungary.

What the Crisis Revealed About Ukrainian Democracy

Luckily, Ukraine is not Hungary, or Russia, or any other state utterly defined by its thin-skinned, strongman leader. The events of the past week provided clear evidence of this distinction. When ordinary people in Russia try to protest during wartime, they are hauled off the street by heavily-armed security forces, beaten, and sentenced to years in prison.

In Ukraine, by contrast, the week’s protests were peaceful and lightly policed. As Kira Rudik of the political party Golos wrote on X: “Protests in Ukraine, even during the wartime, prove one thing: we are a true democracy. This is something russia will never be able to dream of.”

The observation was accurate. People across the free world support Ukraine precisely because it is bigger than a single man, precisely because it’s the sort of society where people aren’t afraid to come out on the streets and express their anger over a power grab. In this day and age, it’s tempting to tie an entire nation to the single man leading it, to take the words of Trump to speak for all Americans or the words of Putin to somehow communicate what’s in the soul of every single Russian.

But the entire point of living in a democracy—the thing that makes democratic societies strong—is the fundamental right to look at the person in charge and say they’re being wrong. That’s what happened in Ukraine. Tens of thousands of people stood in the streets, unafraid of how the images of nightly protests might be manipulated by pro-Russian commentators, unafraid of a government that suggested they were undermining national unity in wartime.

Tens of thousands of people exercised their right to tell Zelensky he was making a mistake.

The Larger Meaning: A Country Worth Supporting

As the reporter in Ukraine stated: “(This) is a reminder that Ukrainians, even 11 years after the Revolution of Dignity and in a war against Russia (…) are ready and will fight for our values – whether on the frontline or on the streets. All the implications that will follow after this law will hurt, first and foremost, not Zelensky or other top authorities. They will fall on the very people who have carried this country through war and crisis – especially those serving on the frontlines.

But as in 2013–2014, Ukrainians understand what’s at stake. And we will not back down.” In allowing the absurd law to be passed—even if it would now be undone—Zelensky permanently damaged his image on the world stage and perhaps even hurt the cause of Ukraine in its fight against Russia.

But he also showed the world that Ukraine is still united, still a democracy, still a country worth supporting. A country that has always been—and will always be—bigger than a single man. Supporting Ukraine doesn’t mean being mindless supporters of Zelensky and his government.

People across the free world support Ukraine precisely because it is bigger than a single individual, because it’s a society where citizens aren’t afraid to express their anger over governmental overreach. The fundamental right to look at leadership and voice disagreement is what makes democratic societies strong, and Ukraine demonstrated this principle even during wartime.

Presented by

Simon Whistler

Simon Whistler is one of YouTube's most prolific educational creators. WarFronts is his deep dive into military history and conflict analysis.

Frequently Asked Questions

What was draft law no. 12414 and why did it spark protests?

Draft law no. 12414 gave the prosecutor-general, a presidential appointee, direct oversight of the Specialised Anti-Corruption Prosecutor’s Office (Sapo) and the ability to quash investigations by the National Anti-Corruption Bureau (Nabu). This effectively ended the independence of Ukraine’s only serious anti-corruption institutions, which were established as a key achievement of the 2013-2014 Maidan Revolution. The law was rushed through parliament in a matter of hours, triggering the first significant mass protests since Russia’s full-scale invasion began.

What are Nabu and Sapo, and why are they important to Ukraine?

Nabu and Sapo are independent institutions established after the Maidan Revolution of 2013-2014 to investigate high-ranking government officials without fear of being shut down — something no Ukrainian institution had been able to do before. Post-Soviet Ukraine was a place where presidents appointed loyalists who could bury politically inconvenient investigations. Nabu and Sapo eliminated this threat and have successfully prosecuted politicians, judges, and other powerful people. Draft law no. 12414 ended that independence in a single parliamentary session.

What were the two competing explanations for why Zelensky backed the law?

The government claimed Nabu and Sapo harbored Kremlin spies, citing the SBU’s allegation that a head detective, Ruslan Mahamedrasulov, was linked to the Russian government and a Dagestani drug syndicate. Critics countered that this was a pretext: Nabu had just opened investigations into close Zelensky associates including former deputy prime minister Oleksiy Chernyshov and a relative of the president’s friend from his TV-producer days. They argued Zelensky was protecting his inner circle while betraying his 2019 campaign promise of ‘victory over corruption.‘

Were the protests calling for peace with Russia, and how did Western partners respond?

No. Protesters chanted ‘Ukraine is not Russia!’ and held signs saying ‘F*ck corruption’ — spontaneous expressions of disgust with the bill, not calls for surrender. Claims to the contrary, notably from US Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene, were false. Western partners expressed alarm: EU enlargement commissioner Marta Kos called it ‘a serious step back,’ and Republican Senator Lindsey Graham warned it handed ammunition to those arguing Ukraine was ‘awash with corruption,’ threatening its path to EU membership.

What happened after the protests, and what does the episode reveal about Ukrainian democracy?

Facing unprecedented public anger, Zelensky backpedaled within days. On July 24th he promised to submit new legislation restoring both agencies’ independence, which Nabu confirmed would ‘restore all procedural powers and guarantees.’ The episode revealed that Ukraine’s democracy is bigger than any single man: while Russian wartime protesters are beaten and imprisoned, Ukrainian citizens peacefully forced their president to reverse course — proof, as politician Kira Rudik wrote on X, that ‘we are a true democracy.‘