Ukraine Must Defeat Corruption Before Joining the EU

In addition to waging war, Ukraine is also striving to root out the rampant corruption in the country. And no wonder — in 2024, the nation ranked as low as 105th on an index measuring corruption levels. That means Ukrainians are slightly more corrupt than those in Morocco, the Dominican Republic, or Serbia, but still less prone to bribery than people in Algeria, Brazil, or Malawi.

Incidentally, the least corrupt countries in the world were Denmark, Finland, Singapore, and New Zealand. At the very bottom of the list — in positions 178 to 180 — were Venezuela, Somalia, and South Sudan.

* * *

Let us return, then, to Ukraine, which is fighting desperately for its independence against the Russians, with strong support from Western nations. Its leadership has also expressed a firm desire to join the European Union.

In my view, the EU — which itself struggles with corruption — must, despite all sympathy toward the Ukrainians, firmly maintain that this goal cannot be achieved unless corruption is thoroughly eradicated from the country. In this respect, Ukrainians are on the right path, but unfortunately still far from the finish line.

It was therefore rather foolish that President Volodymyr Zelensky tried during the summer to limit anti-corruption investigations — a move that raised doubts, both in me and surely in many others, about whether Ukraine can ever leave behind its Slavic legacy of corruption and one day embrace a Western way of life. 

To be sure, he quickly reversed course, but it is clear that the damage was already done and the stigma of corruption attached to Ukrainians only grew stronger. Erasing that image will not be easy — it will require revelations and punishments that may also reach into Zelensky’s own apparently corrupt inner circle.

It remains to be seen how Ukraine will tackle corruption in the future — and whether the problem can ever truly be brought under control so that the country’s EU membership might one day become even theoretically possible.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Ukraine Risks Losing Western Trust by Muzzling Corruption Watchdog
A New Beginning: Economic Independence in the Hands of Developing Nations
Can Trump Resist the Kremlin’s Lure?

The Non-Discrimination Ombudsman violates the law on openness

In Finland, there is an authority named the Non-Discrimination Ombudsman, which operates to provide statements related to its field and also comments on matters through social media. In messaging service X, this authority has most recently conveyed information stating, "The Non-Discrimination Ombudsman assesses that the closure of almost all eastern border crossing points and the concentration of seeking international protection at the Raja-Jooseppi border crossing endangers the right to seek asylum."

If one attempts to respond to the message, it is not possible, and comments can only be given from accounts specifically mentioned by the ombudsman. I am not one of those account owners, and neither is Minister of Justice Leena Meri.

This is perplexing, as the Non-Discrimination Ombudsman is a publicly funded entity serving taxpayers and should cater to the entire population. However, as evident from the above, this is not the case, prompting the question of why.

The issue at hand is why this particular authority is not inherently open to public discourse—or even public dialogue with the government of the country—but instead predefines with whom it is willing to engage.

Therefore, it is pertinent to inquire how this operational model aligns with the purpose stated in the Act on the Openness of Government Activities, which, in clear Finnish language, articulates that "the purpose of the statutory right of access to information and the obligations of authorities is to implement openness in the activities of the authorities, provide individuals and communities the opportunity to monitor the use of public authority and public funds, freely form their opinions, influence the exercise of public authority, and monitor their rights and interests."

Finally, it is worth noting that the current Non-Discrimination Ombudsman is Kristina Stenman, who previously served in the Refugee Advice Centre, assisted far-left professor Martin Scheinin and worked as a city manager. She assumed office on August 1, 2020, having been appointed by the government of Prime Minister Sanna Marin.

The original thought in Finnish:
Yhdenvertaisuusvaltuutettu ja laki viranomaisen toiminnan julkisuudesta

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Freudian slip, 9-year-old girl and cultural appropriation
A Finnish police officer is afraid to speak about the problems of immigration
"Woke" pushes American science academies to favor women in their membership selections