A point for society, but only a pass for the government: Ukraine gains 1 point in the Corruption Perceptions Index 2025

In the Corruption Perceptions Index 2025 (CPI), Ukraine gained one point. We've landed again at 36 points—exactly where we were in 2023. I'll be frank: there are few grounds for loud optimism. And looking back at the events of last year, it is extremely difficult to find any solid foundation for illusions about a rapid leap forward.

And yet, over the past year the country has gone through a tectonic shift. One that relates precisely to the nature of how corruption is perceived, the very foundation Transparency International measures. We did not receive the expected package of systemic reforms from the authorities, but we witnessed something unprecedented: Ukrainian society's complete ethical rejection of corruption. When public outrage becomes a factor the authorities cannot ignore, they are forced to yield.

The only question is whether these shifts are durable and whether they can change the architecture of corruption in Ukraine for good.

Why is this result happening despite government action?

I'll admit it: when I saw the first CPI numbers, I felt a certain dissonance. On paper, we're up. In the reality of 2025, we saw a near-total paralysis of systemic anti-corruption change. Most reforms didn't just slow down—they moved into the risk zone. Even the critically important transformation of ARMA was accompanied by such delays in Parliament that they resulted in direct financial losses for the state budget.

Instead of systemic steps, we saw an escalation of corruption scandals. At one point, it became hard to shake the impression that key anti-corruption "safeguards" were being deliberately dismantled. How else can one interpret a situation in which people from the president's inner circle become subjects of NABU and SAPO investigations?

It's important to state this honestly: law enforcement activity in these cases is not the result of political leadership's goodwill or some internal "self-cleansing" of the system. It is solely the result of NABU and SAPO's professional autonomy. They kept pressing top-level corrupt actors even under direct political and coercive pressure.

So where did this point increase come from?

A detailed analysis of the CPI components confirms that we are dealing with a unique shift in perception. For years, our organization has explained that the Index does not measure the physical volume of bribes; it measures how corruption is seen and perceived by experts and business — both inside and outside the country. We always want to see steady "pluses," because they signal partner trust. But last year, even inside the country, there was no sense of progress. On the contrary, we felt a familiar and highly dangerous taste of a return to arbitrariness, where real fighting is replaced by imitation.

External factors also weighed on the situation. We cannot ignore the change in the United States' focus regarding Ukraine's reform agenda. The demanding stance of Western allies eased somewhat, while European leaders had to concentrate on their own security. Constant assurances of unconditional support for Ukraine created a dangerous illusion of permissiveness "on the Pechersk hills"—as if, in domestic policy, anything would now be tolerated.

People in the president's circle felt beyond reach. And society gave a clear response: Ukraine in 2025 is no longer the country it was twelve years ago. The avalanche of public anger moved in a very different direction than the initiators of last July's reform rollback had expected.

Who actually saved our numbers?

The CPI captures processes dynamically over the last two years. For me, the most telling signal was that Ukraine gained five points at once in the Bertelsmann Foundation's research—an index that records whether officials face real accountability for corruption. In other words, researchers saw and assessed not politicians' promises, but real procedural actions by the NABU, the SAPO, and the HACC.

That is the core answer to why the authorities failed to break the anti-corruption vertical in the summer of 2025. If detectives' work used to be perceived as something intangible, we now have proof: this work is seen and counted by global institutions and by Ukrainian citizens alike. No one would have taken to the streets to defend powerless bodies. Instead, we witnessed the first major social protest of the full-scale war period.

That public resolve had deep meaning. In July, people came out with cardboard signs to defend institutions; by the end of the year, we understood that fighting corruption is a matter of physical security — as basic as heat, electricity, and defense capacity. Citizens preserved NABU and SAPO, and in the fall, those agencies exposed the "Barrier" scheme and the high-profile Mindich case. These investigations literally stopped the state from sliding into the abyss of chaos.

What is more, 2025 proved that political influence is no longer an indulgence. Today, law enforcement can reach any corrupt actor — a challenge even for developed democracies. If cases used to be launched mainly after investigative media reports, anti-corruption institutions themselves have now seized the initiative. This is a fundamentally new quality of the fight.

Breakthrough strategy: what comes next?

Still, we should be realistic: even NABU and SAPO at peak effectiveness cannot radically change the situation without systemic reforms. Politicians may try to play on their own field by their own rules, or sabotage votes for months. But in the end, obligations will have to be met. This is no longer a matter of "good behavior" for the IMF. It is a matter of survival.

We understand it's impossible to implement all reforms at once because of shortages of resources and human capital. But some steps require not billion-dollar investments, only political will. Transparency International Ukraine has identified six priorities for 2026:

1. Unconditional safeguarding of the independence of anti-corruption institutions.
2. Better results in confiscating criminal assets.
3. Stronger institutional capacity and focus of the NACP.
4. Comprehensive modernization of the Criminal Procedure Code to ensure swift justice.
5. Involvement of international experts in selecting HQCJ members.
6. Full adoption and implementation of the State Anti-Corruption Program.

Delivering on these points will make it possible to convert high-profile notices of suspicion into real convictions. This year's additional point is progress at the margin of error. But for Ukraine it weighs more: our society has definitively changed its paradigm.

Corruption has stopped being "background noise" or the government's internal affair. This intolerance, documented in protests and in action, reshapes not only how the world perceives us, but also the very boundary of what is acceptable inside the state.

Andrii Borovyk, Executive Director of Transparency International Ukraine