The Day Zelensky Went Too Far

It took a spy chief, grassroots outrage, and the international community to undo it.

Ukrainains protesting against the law that restricted anti-corruption bodies. Photo Credit: Julia Kalashnyk.

The land of the free.

Only the free can be brave.

The national guardians of Slavers Bay, east of Ukraine, erupted in joy as protests broke out in Kyiv. Ukrainians had taken to the streets after parliament passed a law that brought the National Anti-Corruption Bureau (NABU) and the Special Anti-Corruption Prosecutor’s Office (SAP) under the direct control of the Prosecutor General — a move widely seen as a power grab by the President’s office.

Ukrainians saw it for what it was: an attempt to strip independent anti-corruption bodies of their autonomy and place them under political control.

The Kremlin, smelling opportunity, went all out. Russian state media painted the protests as proof that Zelensky was losing support and that Ukrainians were turning against the war.

Not so fast, evil men.

Not so fast.

If this had happened two years ago, you might have gotten away with it. But this is 2025, not 2023. Even the Washington Post doesn't believe your crap anymore. That’s saying something.

The Kremlin's attempt to hijack the protests and turn them into a referendum on the war effort fell flat — because the people protesting weren’t against the war. They were against corruption. And this wasn’t the first time the President’s office scored a glorious, utterly avoidable own goal.

The first was when they went after Commander-in-Chief Valery Zaluzhnyi.

In an interview published by The Economist on November 1, 2023, Zaluzhnyi made a brutally honest assessment:

“Just like in the First World War, we have reached the level of technology that puts us into a stalemate. There will most likely be no deep and beautiful breakthrough.”

At the time, President Zelensky was flying across capitals, pleading for weapons and political support. His message was clear: Ukraine could win, Ukraine could break through — with the West’s help. The narrative was one of hope, momentum, and strategic advantage.

Zaluzhnyi looked at the battlefield through a different lens. He knew that without overwhelming firepower, air superiority, or a technological edge, the war would grind down into a brutal stalemate. No beautiful breakthrough — just blood, trenches, and time.

It was a mistake by the Commander-in-Chief — not in substance, but in timing. The command should never get in front of the elected leadership on the international stage. Not in wartime. Not when messaging shapes ammo flows. And certainly not when the President is the one holding the talks in Washington and Brussels.

That single interview lit the fuse. And what followed was not just a clash of egos — but a full-blown war of institutions. Presidential adviser Mykhailo Podolyak fired the first shot. Zelensky himself followed it up.

From The Guardian, January 30, 2024:

“Everyone gets tired, no matter their status. And we have different opinions. But it's not a stalemate,” Zelensky said, directly rejecting Zaluzhnyi’s assessment of the front line.

The internal fight became international headlines.

Now, I do think the former CIC made a mistake. He should’ve at least informed the President’s office before that interview got published. It looks like he didn’t. But the worst part wasn’t the interview — it was what came next. The President’s office openly attacked the Commander-in-Chief.

In my book, that was far worse than anything Zaluzhnyi did.

Zelensky had every right to fire him — and he did. That was the correct move. There was no longer alignment between the President and the top general. One of them had to go. It was the CIC. I have no problem with that decision.

But the President had no right to attack his Commander-in-Chief in public. His office crossed that line — and Zelensky should own that blemish forever.

So one inglorious institutional error in 2023.

And now, in 2025, we have another.

The Institute for the Study of War (ISW) laid out the current sequence of the own goal clearly in its report yesterday:

The Ukrainian Verkhovna Rada (parliament) passed Draft Law No. 12414 on July 22, which subordinates Ukraine's two main anti-corruption agencies — the National Anti-Corruption Bureau (NABU) and the Special Anti-Corruption Prosecutor's Office (SAP) — to the Prosecutor General.

President Zelensky signed the bill into law that same evening. Its passage followed a raid on NABU’s offices on July 21 by the SBU and the Prosecutor General’s office. The raid was part of an investigation into alleged collaboration with Russia — after NABU had opened probes into SBU officers for extortion.

Ukrainians began protesting the law as early as June 22 in several large cities, continuing into June 23. Their concern: this law would cripple NABU’s and SAP’s ability to function independently, turning watchdogs into lapdogs.

Zelensky responded by saying Law No. 12414 was needed to shield anti-corruption bodies from Russian infiltration — and promised new legislation to preserve their independence.

But few people bought that. Ukrainians aren’t protesting against the war. They’re protesting against power being centralized and accountability being dismantled. They’ve seen this movie before — and they know how it ends.

Sorry, President Zelensky — we’re not convinced.

Bringing anti-corruption bodies under the Prosecutor General’s Office wasn’t about reducing Russian influence. It looked like a straightforward power grab. A move to pull every lever of the government machine under one hand.

If Russian infiltration was truly your main concern, there were other ways to tackle it. You don’t fight espionage by stripping independence from investigative bodies. That’s not reform — that’s regression.

And Ukrainians knew it.

Just as they rallied in the streets against the law, the entire international support network — including The Concis and many of the most credible think tanks across Europe and the United States — erupted. No one was buying what the President’s office was selling.

Things don’t move that fast in a democracy. That’s the point of a democracy.

Your team drafted the bill, flashed it briefly to the outside world, and before the ink was even dry — it was law. No deliberation, no consultation, no pause.

Too many coincidences in too short a window.

The bill was rammed through. Protests erupted. Social media blew up. Expert after expert — the serious ones, the people I follow religiously and listen to without uttering a word back— called it out. And suddenly, the President’s office, which thought it had a clever move on its hands, found those hands burned.

Zelensky has now climbed down. He’s promised to undo the damage.

This is what the President wrote yesterday:

Today started with the meeting with government officials and representatives of law enforcement agencies.

Of course, everyone has heard what people are saying these days – on social media, to each other, on the streets. It's not falling on deaf ears. We analyzed all concerns, all aspects of what needs to be changed and what needs to be stepped up.

I will propose a bill to the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine that will be the response. It will ensure the strength of the rule of law system, and there will be no Russian influence or interference in the activities of law enforcement.

And very importantly – all the norms for the independence of anti-corruption institutions will be in place. I expect specific proposals of the legal norms that should make it happen from our group of heads of law enforcement and anti-corruption agencies, from the Prosecutor General. This will be a presidential bill, and we will implement it as part of our strategy for the transformation of the state.

Thank you, Mr. President.

Now rescind the law you just signed.

Find the guy who told you this was a great idea — and fire him. He does not have your best interests at heart. He is a danger to you and to the country. Do not repeat the mistake President Biden did. You are only as good as your team — and this guy is a liability to Ukraine.

And sincere thanks to Ukraine’s spy chief, Kyrylo Budanov, for doing the right thing. Because what he didn’t say yesterday was just as powerful as what he did. His carefully chosen words gave the President’s office the off-ramp it desperately needed. Without that subtle intervention, the protests would’ve continued for days, the backlash would’ve deepened, and Ukraine would’ve hurt itself — needlessly.

“Ukrainian history has taught us — a nation loses if it is torn apart by internal contradictions. We have one common trouble, one enemy. Therefore, internal contradictions should be resolved through open dialogue to achieve a single common goal — to defend our country. I am confident that Ukraine will be saved by strong military and institutions,” Budanov said, after the law was passed.

I hope you all caught what Budanov did there.

He didn’t attack the President. He didn’t join the protests. He didn’t issue a direct rebuke. He simply reminded everyone — including the man in charge — that unity and institutional strength are the only things that will save Ukraine.

That’s statesmanship.
That’s restraint.
That’s service.

The Concis needs your support.

Our engagement rate is consistently in the double digits—higher than many of the biggest names on Substack. But reach is still limited, because from Substack’s perspective, we’re under the 10,000-subscriber threshold. Right now, we’re at 7,400.

Our first goal is to break that 10,000 mark—because that’s when visibility expands, and stories like this start landing where they matter most.

Your support helps The Concis fly the flag for Ukraine—and for every democracy—a little stronger, a little higher.