Analyst says firing two ministers won’t resolve Ukraine’s Energoatom corruption crisis

“Let’s be honest: Ukraine is facing at least a managerial crisis, and possibly a political one,” he said. “Firing two ministers will not resolve it.”

Reiterovych was commenting on the scandal surrounding procurement schemes at Energoatom, which the National Anti-Corruption Bureau of Ukraine (NABU) says it has been investigating for the past 15 months. On Nov. 14, President Volodymyr Zelenskyy called on two ministers to resign — Justice Minister Herman Halushchenko and Energy Minister Svitlana Hrynchuk — after public backlash over the government’s initial attempt to simply “suspend” Halushchenko.

“Not a story about two ministers”

Reiterovych argued that the scandal exposes systemic failings that go far beyond individual ministers.

He said the entire Cabinet should step down, noting that Prime Minister Yulia Svyrydenko bears responsibility both as current premier and as former economy minister — a role that encompassed oversight of Energoatom.

“She directly oversaw the sector,” he said. “She should have known what was happening at Energoatom.”

He added that many government officials ignored previous investigative reports flagging irregularities in the state nuclear operator.

NABU has alleged the existence of an informal “supervisors’ institute” at Energoatom — a shadow system of influence that has historically appeared across different Ukrainian administrations. Reiterovych said such systems cannot function without the knowledge of the relevant ministries.

“If you knew and did nothing, that means you received instruction from above — or benefitted from the system,” he said.

Why a full Cabinet resignation wouldn’t paralyze the state

Members of the ruling Servant of the People party have argued that firing the entire government during wartime would “decapitate” the state. Reiterovych dismissed this argument as a misunderstanding of how public administration works.

He noted that:

• Ukraine already changed its government during the war earlier this year.
• Ministries continue functioning even when ministers are removed, because operational work is led by career civil servants and state secretaries chosen through competitive procedures.
• Political appointees — ministers and deputy ministers — are only a small part of the system.

Ukraine already changed its government during the war earlier this year.

Ministries continue functioning even when ministers are removed, because operational work is led by career civil servants and state secretaries chosen through competitive procedures.

Political appointees — ministers and deputy ministers — are only a small part of the system.

Ukraine already changed its government during the war earlier this year.

Ministries continue functioning even when ministers are removed, because operational work is led by career civil servants and state secretaries chosen through competitive procedures.

Political appointees — ministers and deputy ministers — are only a small part of the system.

“The apparatus runs the ministries. Nothing stops,” he said. “These deputies don’t understand basic principles of public administration.”

He added that, informally, Ukraine’s Cabinet is accountable not to parliament but to the president — a structural weakness that contributes to governance problems.

“Coalition does not exist”

Reiterovych said the scandal also exposes deeper issues in Ukraine’s political system.

He argued that Ukraine no longer has a functioning parliamentary coalition, despite one existing “on paper,” and that the crisis should trigger broader political reform — including potentially forming a technocratic, non-quota-based government accountable to parliament.

“The government should not be trying to avoid political responsibility,” he said. “Dismissing two ministers won’t fix the problem. Sooner or later they will have to return to this issue.”