Davis Richardson, managing partner at Paradox Public Relations and CEO of AUSP, offers an incisive look at Ukraine’s ongoing battle against corruption and its pursuit of economic reform. AUSP stands for America Ukraine Strategic Partners and was launched in 2023 after Davis visited Ukraine. It facilitates partnerships between Ukrainian entities and American organizations, including U.S. defence contractors and Western investors.

Davis unpacks the complexities of decentralization, the critical role of foreign investment, and the necessity of government transparency. Richardson also underscores the importance of strategic alliances among Eastern European nations in pushing back against Russian influence. Reflecting on the legacy of Ukraine’s Revolution of Dignity, he highlights the country’s enduring struggle for democracy. As Ukraine accelerates its push for EU integration, he stresses the urgency of dismantling entrenched corruption, ensuring accountability, and leveraging international support to drive economic growth and institutional reform.

Scott Douglas Jacobsen: What are Ukraine’s main challenges when advancing anti-corruption initiatives within government institutions?

Davis Richardson: The primary issue is structural. However, before discussing Ukraine’s challenges, it is important to highlight its strengths.

Russia currently suffers from the limitations of a centralized, top-down economy and decision-making system. This has been evident in how it manages military recruitment. For example, there is currently strong demand in Russia for drone operator roles because they reduce the likelihood of being deployed to frontline combat.

As a result, many young Russian men are seeking to become drone operators to avoid being drafted for direct military service. In response, the Russian government has implemented new regulations to curb this trend, which, in turn, has fueled public dissatisfaction and unrest.

Ukraine, on the other hand, faces the opposite problem. Its government is highly decentralized, which reduces the risk of authoritarian rule like that seen under Putin. However, decentralization comes with its own set of challenges.

For example, many Ukrainian governmental institutions and municipalities do not communicate effectively with one another. As a result, two separate non-profits—perhaps one based in the U.S., but more often two Ukrainian organizations—may develop similar solutions to the same issue without even being aware of each other’s existence, let alone coordinating their efforts.

Decentralization has clear benefits. The United States itself is built on a decentralized governmental model. When you read The Federalist Papers, you see that the separation of powers was a foundational principle that enabled America’s growth and stability.

However, Ukraine is currently facing the limitations of a decentralized system during wartime, particularly as Russia has been actively undermining the country for decades, not just since World War II.

Addressing these challenges will be a difficult and complex process. However, the most critical step is improving communication between municipalities—encouraging dialogue and fostering mutual recognition and legitimacy. Sometimes, one politician may attempt to discredit another by accusing them of corruption, which only exacerbates the problem.

When Ukrainians say corruption, it has a completely different meaning than it does to Americans. When we think of anti-corruption, we often imagine oligarchs running off with taxpayer dollars. In Ukraine, however, corruption refers to something much more insidious—whether government members are taking payments from Moscow and providing intelligence to Russia.

That’s a fundamentally different, existential definition of the term. As the United States continues to engage with Ukraine, it must recognize the importance of clear communication around these terms.

Jacobsen: How would you assess the effectiveness of Ukraine’s anti-corruption institutions, specifically NABU, the National Anti-Corruption Bureau, and SAPO, the Specialized Anti-Corruption Prosecutor’s Office?

Richardson: There is still a long way to go. First, there are different factions within these agencies. Kyiv has a unique political dynamic compared to the rest of the country.

In the U.S., we think of smearing political opponents in places like New York or D.C. or even at a Super Bowl game. However, Ukraine has a cultural element that is left over from the Soviet era. Political opposition is often smeared as pro-Russian, and these accusations are frequently used as a political weapon.

The paradox is that corruption is a significant issue in Ukraine, and anti-corruption initiatives are essential. However, the challenge lies in ensuring these efforts are effective, as corruption still exists at a practical level. At the same time, if everyone is labeled corrupt or pro-Russian, the term loses its meaning.

Jacobsen: If everyone is “special,” no one is special.

Richardson: Exactly. That’s another challenge I’ve encountered. However, overall, the government has made significant progress.

Ukraine is committed to integrating into the European Union, and these reforms are a key part of that effort. That said, much of the process needs to be streamlined. I believe the Ministry of Digital Transformation is an excellent starting point. Among government agencies, aside from the military, it is one of the few that enjoys broad support across Ukrainian society.

When Russia invaded, the Diia was launched, becoming a highly successful digital platform. It has been recognized by the United States and leading international institutions like the World Bank and the United Nations. The Diia is successful by every metric and is widely popular among Ukrainians.

The benefits would be substantial if a similar approach were applied to coordinating various anti-corruption task forces and initiatives.

Jacobsen: What can other transitional and post-Soviet democracies learn from Ukraine’s setbacks and successes in anti-corruption reforms? I should add one qualifier—they have the significant advantage of not having to implement these reforms in the middle of a war.

Richardson: Yeah, well, that’s one benefit. If you look at a country like Poland, it serves as a successful example. In many ways, Ukraine’s journey now mirrors the steps that Poland’s ancestors took in their march toward freedom.

The main lesson here is that conversations about anti-corruption initiatives in Ukraine are nothing new. They date back to the collapse of the Soviet Union. Unfortunately, these discussions have often played out like a three-card Monte game. Western investors or government agencies are led to believe reforms are happening, but real change is not implemented.

Before the full-scale invasion, projects cost millions of dollars yet produced little to show. These initiatives were developed using public funds in partnership with the private sector. That is why it is crucial to establish tangible results and clear benchmarks to measure success.

The key question is: Are we having conversations that genuinely move the needle forward, or are we just going in circles? It will be a challenging process, but the focus must shift from mere discussions about corruption to achieving concrete results with clear indicators of success.

Jacobsen: What anti-corruption efforts resonate more with the Ukrainian public but may not have the same impact on an American audience? Earlier, you mentioned the definitional differences in how corruption is understood. How would the Ukrainian public perceive certain efforts as more substantive compared to the United States?

Richardson: Well, there’s an interesting overlap in areas of agreement. In the U.S., the media often portrays the anti-corruption debate as Ukraine misusing American taxpayer dollars. But the reality is, if corruption occurs, who suffers even more than Americans? The answer is Ukrainians.

Before USAID was shut down, I spoke at an event they hosted in Kyiv. A brilliant scholar from Kharkiv presented research showing that municipal funds promised for specific projects never reached their intended destinations. He later won a competition for this research.

Just as Americans sometimes misunderstand the term corruption in the Ukrainian context, there is also a misinterpretation of who is most affected. In reality, Ukrainians and Americans share an interest in ensuring that financial aid is allocated properly—to both NGOs and government programs as originally intended.

This has been a significant challenge. The Biden administration issued a blank check to Ukraine without sufficient oversight. There were painful lessons, but the harshest consequences were felt on Ukraine’s side.

That said, I believe Ukraine is moving in the right direction to implement the necessary reforms. However, it is a slow process and will take time.

Jacobsen: For comparison, how does corruption play out in neighbouring countries—Romania, Moldova, Russia, etc.? This will help readers understand that the conversation around anti-corruption is not isolated to Ukraine.

Richardson: So the question is, how does corruption affect those countries, and how do they respond to it?

At the end of the day, there is a common theme: Where is the funding for these anti-democratic movements coming from? In nearly every case, the source is the same.

Countries that struggle with corruption also face an existential threat—it is not just about self-interest or personal gain. Corruption often functions as active sabotage, benefiting an adversary that seeks to undermine democratic institutions. This is an ongoing fight. Look at what is happening in Georgia right now. Ukraine has consistently been—both metaphorically and literally—on the front lines of resisting Russian authoritarianism.

However, the moment you allow corruption to take hold, you can quickly end up in a situation like Georgia, where certain officials enter office under suspicious circumstances, possibly receiving foreign payments, and the fabric of the government begins to erode.

The United States decided to sanction the Georgian government for similar reasons.

When discussing countries, we need to break this down further. A country is composed of its government, but where does that government’s loyalty lie? Is it acting as a proxy for a hostile foreign power, or are there individual activists and opposition groups fighting against it?

The key takeaway for those activists and opposition groups is to watch what is happening in Ukraine.

Additionally, countries facing similar challenges should consider forming strategic partnerships. Is there potential for a NATO-style alliance of Eastern and Central European countries that share these struggles and want to reduce reliance on U.S. support?

That could be one potential solution—an alliance that functions like NATO but focuses specifically on countering corruption and anti-democratic forces in the region.

Jacobsen: What needs to be done in the short term? What steps can be taken to further anti-corruption efforts and counter anti-democratic forces within Ukrainian institutions?

Richardson: I think private equity and private capital will be driving forces in Ukraine. There is already significant movement surrounding U.S. investment funds entering Ukraine’s market. Many firms have strict corporate governance standards and will not tolerate certain past behaviours.

Some actors and organizations in Ukraine are eager to move away from oligarchic practices and the siphoning of public funds. They want to leave that era behind. At this point, it is essentially a “get with the program or get out” scenario.

It is a carrot-and-stick approach—if companies want to secure reconstruction contracts and requests for proposals (RFPs) from international players and U.S. investment firms, they must meet clear benchmarks. This includes transparency regarding which vendors are involved and the principal stakeholders and ensuring government funds are spent with full accountability.

Jacobsen: Do you have any final thoughts?

Richardson: The next year is going to be critical for Ukraine. While we have discussed difficult topics, it is important to recognize that Ukrainians lead some of the most significant anti-corruption progress. They want a clean break from the past.

Opportunities have been missed in the past, but Ukraine is now in a position to thrive—especially with strong U.S. and European support.

At the end of the day, Maidan and the Revolution of Dignity were not just political protests. Nearly one million people participated in the Revolution of Dignity, which is more than a revolution—it is transformational.

What we are witnessing today is the continuation of that movement. Russia’s invasion of Ukraine did not begin in 2022—it started with Crimea in 2014. Ukraine is on a path to freedom, and those taking the right steps understand that they must change some of their past business practices to become part of the European Union and attract foreign investment.

This transformation will be difficult and painful, but we are here to support them, share expertise, and connect them with the right people who can help Ukraine build a sustainable future.

Jacobsen: Thank you very much for your time today.

Richardson: Thank you so much, Scott. I appreciate it. Please keep me posted on the progress of this.