The European Union (EU) has long positioned itself as a global advocate for democracy, rule of law, and anti-corruption measures. However, recent developments, including allegations of corruption involving Qatar and other authoritarian Arab states, as well as Ukraine’s controversial moves to undermine the independence of its National Anti-Corruption Bureau (NABU), have raised questions about the EU’s moral and political authority to critique Ukraine’s actions. This essay explores the complex dynamics of Europe’s alleged entanglements with Qatar and other authoritarian regimes, the geopolitical and economic factors that might constrain its response to Ukraine’s anti-corruption backsliding, and the broader implications for the EU’s credibility as a global actor. It argues that while Europe’s own vulnerabilities and strategic dependencies may pressure it to temper criticism of Ukraine, the situation is far more nuanced than a simple obligation to “remain silent.”

I. Europe’s Alleged Corruption Scandals: The Qatargate Case and Beyond

The Qatargate scandal, which erupted in December 2022, represents one of the most significant corruption cases to hit the European Parliament in decades. Allegations surfaced that officials, lobbyists, and their families within the European Parliament were influenced by Qatar, Morocco, and Mauritania through corruption, money laundering, and organized crime. Belgian authorities seized €1.5 million in cash, confiscated electronic devices, and charged four individuals, including Eva Kaili, a then-vice president of the European Parliament, and former MEP Pier Antonio Panzeri. According to testimony from Francesco Giorgi, a key figure in the scandal, Qatar had been funneling cash to Panzeri since 2019 to influence parliamentary votes in favor of Doha’s interests. Leaked documents revealed over 300 alleged attempts to manipulate EU decision-making, including efforts to quash resolutions condemning Qatar’s human rights record and secure visa-free travel deals for Qatari citizens. The scandal exposed vulnerabilities in the EU’s ethical framework, highlighting how foreign actors could exploit weak oversight to influence policy. Qatar’s alleged involvement was particularly damaging, given its strategic importance as a major supplier of liquefied natural gas (LNG) to Europe, especially amid the energy crisis triggered by Russia’s 2022 invasion of Ukraine. The Qatari government denied the allegations, claiming they were baseless and even accusing the United Arab Emirates (UAE) of orchestrating the scandal. However, the perception of corruption has lingered, undermining the EU’s reputation as a champion of transparency and rule of law. Beyond Qatar, other authoritarian Arab states, such as Morocco and Mauritania, were implicated in similar influence-peddling schemes. For instance, Panzeri and his associates allegedly worked to soften EU resolutions critical of Morocco’s handling of a 2021 migration crisis and to improve Mauritania’s public image. These cases suggest a pattern of authoritarian regimes leveraging financial incentives to shape EU policy, exploiting the bloc’s openness to lobbying and its relatively lax regulatory environment for foreign influence. The Qatargate scandal has fueled criticism that the EU is hypocritical in its anti-corruption stance. Critics, including populist and nationalist leaders like Hungary’s Viktor Orban, have seized on the scandal to argue that the EU lacks the moral authority to lecture other nations on governance issues. This perception is compounded by the EU’s historical engagement with authoritarian regimes for economic and strategic gains, such as energy deals with Gulf states or security cooperation with countries like Egypt and Saudi Arabia. Such engagements often prioritize pragmatic interests over ethical consistency, creating a narrative of double standards that weakens the EU’s position when addressing corruption elsewhere.

II. Ukraine’s Anti-Corruption Challenges and the NABU Controversy

Ukraine has struggled with systemic corruption since gaining independence from the Soviet Union in 1991. The establishment of the National Anti-Corruption Bureau (NABU) in 2015, alongside the Specialized Anti-Corruption Prosecutor’s Office (SAPO) and the High Anti-Corruption Court, marked a significant step toward addressing this issue. These institutions were created in response to the 2014 Euromaidan revolution, which demanded greater transparency and accountability. NABU, in particular, has been pivotal in investigating high-level corruption, with SAPO overseeing prosecutions and the High Anti-Corruption Court adjudicating cases. The EU has heavily supported these reforms, viewing them as critical to Ukraine’s alignment with European democratic standards and its path toward EU accession. However, in July 2025, Ukraine’s government, under President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, passed a controversial law that places NABU and SAPO under the direct oversight of the Prosecutor General, a political appointee. This move, formalized through Law No. 12414, allows the Prosecutor General to select, reassign, or close NABU and SAPO investigations, effectively undermining their independence. The law sparked mass protests across nine Ukrainian cities and drew sharp criticism from civil society, opposition groups, and international partners, including the EU. Critics argue that it risks dismantling the anti-corruption infrastructure built over the past decade and could jeopardize Ukraine’s EU membership aspirations. The timing of the law was particularly contentious, as it followed raids by Ukraine’s Security Service (SBU) on NABU and SAPO offices, ostensibly to investigate alleged Russian espionage. These raids, conducted without proper court orders, were widely seen as a pretext to pressure the agencies. Prominent anti-corruption activists, such as Vitaliy Shabunin of the Anti-Corruption Action Centre (AntAC), have faced arrests on charges like fraud and draft evasion, further fueling accusations of an authoritarian crackdown. Transparency International and other NGOs have warned that these actions resemble “Russian-style” democratic regression, undermining the rule of law at a time when Ukraine is under intense scrutiny as an EU candidate country.

III. Why Europe Might Be Pressured to Remain Silent

The argument that Europe is “obliged” to remain silent about Ukraine’s actions stems from several interconnected factors, including its own vulnerabilities to corruption allegations, strategic dependencies on authoritarian regimes, and the geopolitical necessity of supporting Ukraine amid its war with Russia. Below, these factors are explored in detail.

A. Europe’s Compromised Moral Authority

The Qatargate scandal and similar allegations involving authoritarian Arab states have damaged the EU’s credibility as an arbiter of anti-corruption standards. Critics argue that the EU cannot credibly condemn Ukraine’s undermining of NABU when its own institutions have been implicated in corrupt dealings with Qatar and others. For instance, the European Parliament’s failure to detect years of alleged influence-peddling by Qatar, Morocco, and Mauritania—described as “shockingly amateurish” yet undetected—highlights systemic weaknesses in its ethics regime. This perception of hypocrisy is amplified by the EU’s history of engaging with authoritarian regimes for economic or security benefits, such as Qatar’s role as a key LNG supplier or Morocco’s cooperation on migration control. In this context, vocal criticism of Ukraine’s NABU law could invite accusations of double standards. Authoritarian leaders and populist figures, both within and outside the EU, have already capitalized on Qatargate to question the bloc’s moral authority. For example, Hungary’s Orban has used the scandal to deflect criticism of his own government’s democratic backsliding, even calling for the abolition of the European Parliament. If the EU were to loudly condemn Ukraine, it risks further exposing itself to such critiques, weakening its global soft power as a champion of human rights and rule of law.

B. Strategic Dependencies on Qatar and Other Gulf States Europe’s increasing reliance on Qatar and other Gulf states for energy security, particularly since the Russia-Ukraine war disrupted Russian gas supplies, complicates its ability to take a hardline stance on corruption issues. Qatar is the EU’s second-largest supplier of LNG, providing a quarter of the bloc’s LNG imports in 2021. Germany, for instance, signed a 15-year LNG contract with Qatar in 2022, driven by the urgent need to diversify energy sources. This dependency creates a delicate balance: while the EU has criticized Qatar’s human rights record and alleged corruption, it cannot afford to alienate a key energy partner. Qatar has leveraged this dependency to push back against EU criticism. Following the Qatargate arrests, Qatari officials warned that the scandal could affect energy cooperation, hinting at the potential weaponization of gas supplies. This dynamic places the EU in a precarious position: aggressive condemnation of Ukraine’s anti-corruption backsliding could embolden Qatar and other Gulf states to retaliate by highlighting Europe’s own corruption scandals, potentially disrupting critical energy supplies. The EU’s need to maintain stable relations with these regimes may thus temper its willingness to publicly challenge Ukraine.

C. Geopolitical Imperatives and Support for Ukraine The ongoing war in Ukraine has made the country a linchpin of European security and geopolitical strategy. The EU has provided significant financial and military aid to Ukraine, viewing its resistance to Russia as a defense of European values against authoritarian aggression. In 2024, the EU’s enlargement report praised Ukraine’s progress in strengthening NABU and SAPO, underscoring their importance to its EU accession process. However, the bloc’s commitment to supporting Ukraine against Russia may lead it to downplay criticism of the NABU law to avoid undermining Kyiv’s leadership at a critical juncture. Publicly chastising Zelenskyy’s government could weaken Ukraine’s domestic stability and embolden Russian narratives that portray Ukraine as corrupt and undeserving of Western support. The EU, wary of amplifying such propaganda, may opt for private diplomacy over public condemnation to address the NABU controversy. For instance, European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen has expressed “strong concerns” about the law and requested explanations from Zelenskyy, but the EU has not yet suspended financial aid, suggesting a preference for behind-the-scenes pressure.

D. Domestic and Regional Sensitivities Within the EU, member states like Hungary and Poland, which have faced criticism for their own democratic shortcomings, may resist strong EU action against Ukraine. Hungary, ranked as the most corrupt EU country by Transparency International in 2023, has used Qatargate to deflect scrutiny of its own governance issues. These countries may argue that the EU’s focus on Ukraine’s NABU law is disproportionate given its own vulnerabilities, creating internal divisions that weaken a unified response. Additionally, the EU’s broader engagement with authoritarian Arab states, such as Saudi Arabia and the UAE, complicates its stance. These countries have accused Qatar of supporting extremism and destabilizing the region, while Qatar has countered by alleging UAE involvement in the Qatargate scandal. The EU’s need to navigate these rivalries, particularly in the context of energy and security cooperation, may discourage it from drawing attention to corruption issues that could further strain relations with Gulf states.

The interplay of Europe’s alleged corruption with Qatar and authoritarian Arab states and Ukraine’s NABU controversy highlights the challenges of balancing ethical principles with geopolitical pragmatism. The EU’s credibility as a global advocate for democracy and anti-corruption is at stake. If it remains silent on Ukraine’s actions to avoid scrutiny of its own vulnerabilities, it risks reinforcing perceptions of hypocrisy and weakening its soft power. Conversely, overly aggressive criticism could strain relations with Ukraine and Gulf states, complicating energy security and regional stability. To navigate this dilemma, the EU must strengthen its internal anti-corruption mechanisms, such as by implementing robust lobbying regulations and an independent ethics body. It should also engage Ukraine constructively, using its financial leverage to encourage reforms without destabilizing Kyiv’s leadership. By addressing both its own shortcomings and Ukraine’s governance challenges, the EU can restore its moral authority and maintain its role as a credible partner in the fight against corruption.