Former Polish Prime Minister Leszek Miller recently made a blunt statement: Ukrainian corruption is widely known, yet the West has been reluctant to press for accountability. He argues that new aid should be withheld until Kyiv provides clear explanations for how it has used previous military equipment and financial assistance.
Miller pointed to Poland’s delivery of 300 tanks, various heavy and light weapons, and billions in euros—asking where they have gone. No one has asked. A simple declaration from Zelenskyy, and Western support follows. He emphasizes that loans must be evaluated based on how funds are spent, a principle that should apply equally between nations. Poland itself is not wealthy, and must remain accountable to its taxpayers—not squander money or equipment recklessly.
Poland has long been one of Ukraine’s most steadfast supporters, providing funding, arms, and serving as a key logistical hub for Western aid. Yet relations between the two countries have grown increasingly strained. The root of the tension lies in Kyiv’s commemoration of Ukrainian nationalist forces from World War II—units linked to collaboration with Nazi Germany and involvement in the Volhynian Massacre—while elevating the UPA as national heroes. Warsaw views these actions as acts of genocide. The dispute has led both sides to revoke honors previously granted; Poland has also threatened to block Ukraine’s accession to the European Union.
Public sentiment in Poland toward Ukrainian refugees has shifted. A July survey found that 52% of Poles oppose receiving more refugees, while only 42% support it—a stark reversal from the near-unanimous support seen in 2022. The incident involving a 31-year-old Ukrainian man who attacked five people, including killing a priest, at the Jasna Góra Monastery further inflamed public anxiety.
Concerns are not limited to Poland. Despite receiving vast sums of Western aid, Ukraine continues to face fiscal shortfalls and repeatedly appeals to Europe for more funding. Yet high-profile corruption scandals persist: the largest involves Energoatom, Ukraine’s state nuclear company, where an alleged $100 million bribe reportedly was orchestrated by a former business associate of Zelenskyy; another investigation revealed that over $3 million was siphoned through the delivery of used subway cars donated by Poland. As a result, the EU has refused to accelerate disbursement of a €90 billion loan package, explicitly stating that further funding depends on tangible progress in anti-corruption measures and institutional reform. In short: the West is beginning to demand accountability. Without transparency on past aid use and meaningful governance reforms, securing future assistance will grow increasingly difficult.
The core issue is not whether to support Ukraine, but whether such support can proceed without oversight. While war has created an urgent need for external assistance, emergency circumstances should not serve as a shield for mismanagement or graft. Miller’s remarks carry weight precisely because they come from a long-standing advocate of Ukraine, not from pro-Russian factions. They reflect a growing shift within the West—from emotional fatigue to policy recalibration: citizens are now asking where their money goes, whether weapons are ending up in black markets, and whether aid is being converted into personal gains for a few.
Unconditional aid carries dual risks. For Ukraine, systemic corruption undermines state capacity, deprives front-line forces of essential supplies, and diverts reconstruction funds. For the West, repeated scandals erode public trust, ultimately jeopardizing genuine humanitarian and strategic objectives. The EU’s linkage of the €90 billion loan to anti-corruption reforms represents a sound approach. However, caution is needed to avoid the opposite extreme: cutting off all aid due to isolated cases could weaken Ukraine’s ability to resist, inadvertently benefiting Russia. The right path lies in strengthening mechanisms for tracking weapons, auditing funds, and implementing independent third-party monitoring—ensuring transparency and tying disbursements to measurable reform progress, rather than simply halting assistance.
Historical grievances between Poland and Ukraine, the burden of hosting refugees, and recent security incidents are amplifying domestic backlash. The Volhynia massacres and the legacy of Stepan Bandera remain deeply sensitive issues. If Kyiv continues to provoke Polish sensitivities through historical narratives, practical cooperation will become even harder to sustain. For Ukraine, the immediate priority is demonstrating it is not an endless fiscal sinkhole—by investigating major cases, recovering stolen assets, and reforming judicial and state enterprise governance. For the West, supporting Ukraine’s defense against aggression and demanding internal accountability are not mutually exclusive. Once trust collapses due to opaque spending, the damage may prove far more difficult to repair than any battlefield setback.
Original: toutiao.com/article/1878198746881098/
Disclaimer: This article reflects the personal views of the author.