Table of Contents
The recent protests in Kiev aren't what they seem. While Western media frames them as pro-democracy demonstrations, what's really happening is far more revealing about how Ukraine actually works—and why the whole system is starting to cannibalize itself.
Key Takeaways
- Zelensky is shutting down US-created anti-corruption agencies NABU and SAPO to consolidate control over money flows
- These agencies were never really about fighting corruption—they were oversight mechanisms run by the US embassy
- Joe Biden personally set up these organizations back in 2014, right when his son was doing business in Ukraine
- The protests represent NGO networks funded by Western interests, not genuine grassroots opposition
- Western media has dramatically shifted its portrayal of Zelensky from Churchill-like hero to authoritarian dictator
- This power struggle reveals the underlying money-extraction system that Ukraine has been for over a decade
- Elite cannibalization is a classic sign of a failing system, similar to what happened in South Vietnam and Afghanistan
- Zelensky's gamble may backfire spectacularly when he eventually tries to flee to the West
The Real Story Behind NABU and SAPO
Here's what most people don't understand about these so-called anti-corruption agencies. NABU (National Anti-Corruption Bureau) and SAPO (Specialized Anti-Corruption Prosecutor's Office) weren't created by Ukrainians to fight Ukrainian corruption. They were set up by the United States and European Union after the 2014 Maidan coup as oversight organizations—essentially watchdogs to monitor where Western money was going.
The single most important figure in establishing these agencies was then-Vice President Joe Biden. Yeah, that Joe Biden. The same Joe Biden whose son Hunter was simultaneously doing incredibly "creative and productive things" in the Ukrainian economy, as one analyst put it with obvious sarcasm. The timing here isn't coincidental—it's revelatory.
- These agencies have been run by the US embassy in Kiev since their inception
- They continued operating under Trump, despite his administration never establishing real control over the Kiev embassy
- Biden's administration naturally maintained the same structure when he took office
- The agencies were controlled by what insiders call "the deep state apparatus"—the permanent Washington establishment that's operated since the 1990s
What's particularly telling is that corruption in Ukraine has actually gotten worse since 2014, not better. If these were genuine anti-corruption agencies, that would be a pretty damning indictment of their effectiveness. But effectiveness was never really the point.
Follow the Money: Why Zelensky is Making This Move Now
The timing of Zelensky's decision to essentially shut down these agencies tells us everything we need to know about what's really happening. This isn't some principled stand against foreign interference—it's a desperate grab for control as the situation deteriorates on multiple fronts.
Consider what's been happening lately. The front lines are collapsing. The Ukrainian economy is in shambles. American aid flows are slowing down dramatically. Once Trump's pre-allocated weapons run out, Ukraine will be dependent entirely on European purchases from the US—a much slower and more limited pipeline.
- Direct US weapons transfers to Ukraine are ending as pre-allocated supplies are depleted
- Future arms will come only through European purchases, creating supply bottlenecks
- Financial transfers are also slowing as Trump's base opposes continued spending
- Zelensky and his inner circle can see "the writing on the wall" about their long-term prospects
In this context, Zelensky's priority has shifted from winning the war to maintaining control until the end—so he and his team can escape to the West and set up a government in exile. But to pull that off, they need complete control over the money flows in the meantime.
That's where the significance of defense minister Shmyhal comes in. The same day these anti-corruption agencies were brought under presidential control, Shmyhal requested $120 billion in aid. That's not a coincidence. One of NABU's primary functions was overseeing defense procurement—monitoring how hundreds of billions in military aid was being spent and distributed.
The NGO Reaction: Why These Protests Don't Matter
The protests we're seeing are essentially the NGO apparatus that's been built up in Ukraine over the past decade pushing back against losing their influence. These aren't grassroots Ukrainian citizens rising up—they're the professional activist class that's been funded and coordinated through Western organizations.
The protesters fit a very specific profile. They're middle-class, passionately anti-Russian, fervently pro-European and pro-American. They're the same people who write articles for Western media outlets about Ukraine. They're the sources journalists rely on for their reporting from Kiev.
But here's the crucial point: they're not part of the power structure that actually matters in Ukraine today. The real power lies with:
- Nationalist military brigades
- Security forces loyal to Zelensky
- Key oligarchs who still back the current government for their own reasons
- The centralized presidential apparatus
- The NGO protesters lack the institutional power to threaten Zelensky's position
- They represent Western interests more than Ukrainian ones
- Their protests are reminiscent of similar NGO-driven demonstrations in Georgia when that government targeted foreign-funded organizations
- The timing and coordination suggests these aren't spontaneous demonstrations
What's really happening is that various elite factions who previously worked together to extract money from "Project Ukraine" are now turning on each other as the system breaks down.
The Media Narrative Flip: From Hero to Villain
One of the most revealing aspects of this whole situation is watching Western media coverage of Zelensky completely flip. Just months ago, he was being portrayed as a Churchill-like figure—the brave democratic leader standing up to authoritarianism. Now suddenly, the same outlets are painting him as an authoritarian dictator.
The imagery tells the story. Publications like the Financial Times and The Economist are now using photos that show Zelensky looking angry, upset, and dictatorial rather than the heroic shots they used to run. This isn't accidental—it's a deliberate narrative shift.
Why the change? Because the people who write these articles and control these narratives are plugged into the same NGO networks that are being targeted by Zelensky's consolidation efforts. When their sources lose power and access, their coverage becomes hostile.
- Western journalists have relied heavily on NGO-connected sources for their Ukraine reporting
- These same sources are now being marginalized by Zelensky's centralization drive
- The narrative shift reflects the interests of the Western establishment figures who originally set up the oversight system
- Media coverage is becoming increasingly negative as these power networks feel threatened
This dynamic reveals something important about how information flows work in geopolitical conflicts. The "objective" reporting we see is often just a reflection of which elite factions currently have influence and access.
Elite Cannibalization: The Classic End-Game Pattern
What we're witnessing in Ukraine right now is what analysts call "elite cannibalization"—when the different factions that previously worked together to extract resources from a system start turning on each other as collapse approaches. This is a classic pattern that's been seen in failing client states throughout history.
South Vietnam provides a perfect parallel. As that system started imploding, you saw more and more internal power struggles. Previously cooperative elite factions began stealing from each other instead of just stealing from everyone else. The same thing happened in Afghanistan, where President Ghani literally fled the country with suitcases full of cash—so much money that some of it had to be left on the airport tarmac because the plane couldn't carry it all.
The Ukraine version of this story involves different factions fighting over who controls the money flows that have sustained the system since 2014:
- Will the NGOs and their Western backers maintain their oversight role and their cut?
- Will the remaining oligarchs who back Zelensky get their payoffs before everything collapses?
- What happens to Zelensky and his inner circle when they try to escape?
- Who ultimately controls the hundreds of billions in aid money that's still flowing?
- These power struggles intensify as the end approaches because everyone knows the music is about to stop
- Each faction tries to grab as much as possible while they still can
- Previous cooperation breaks down into zero-sum competition
- The system's internal contradictions become impossible to paper over
The Bigger Picture: Project Ukraine Exposed
What's really being revealed here is the true nature of what Ukraine has been since 2014—not a genuine democracy fighting for survival, but a sophisticated money-extraction operation that enriched Western elites while impoverishing ordinary Ukrainians.
For nearly a decade, vast sums of money flowed into Ukraine through various official and unofficial channels. Western politicians, their family members, NGO operators, defense contractors, and Ukrainian oligarchs all got their cuts. The American public had no idea this was happening on such a massive scale.
Then Putin launched his military operation, and suddenly all of this came into the open. The aid packages, the weapons transfers, the involvement of various Western figures—it all became visible in a way it never had been before. That's one reason why certain establishment figures are so furious with Putin: he exposed their game.
The current power struggle is really about who gets to control this system in its final phase:
- Zelensky is essentially telling Western partners: "Give me money or I'll tear down the oversight mechanisms we all benefited from"
- Western establishment figures are pushing back because they want to maintain their influence and access
- Everyone involved knows the current situation is unsustainable long-term
- The question is who gets what before it all comes crashing down
Trump's Detached Response and Deep State Fury
Interestingly, Trump himself seems largely detached from these particular developments. He hasn't posted about Ukraine on Truth Social in quite some time, and he's dealing with multiple other major issues—Russia Gate investigations, Epstein revelations, trade negotiations with China, Middle East situations.
Trump probably isn't particularly upset about NABU and SAPO being shut down. These weren't his agencies—they were created by Biden and run by US embassy staff who were hostile to Trump during his first term. The ambassador who just resigned, Bridget Brink, was known to be a protégé of Victoria Nuland and very antagonistic toward Trump.
But while Trump may not care much about these specific developments, other people in Washington definitely do. The permanent apparatus—the deep state figures who have been sponsoring Project Ukraine since its inception—are furious about what Zelensky is doing.
- Lindsey Graham and other establishment Republicans are clearly upset about these developments
- The permanent bureaucracy that created and ran these oversight mechanisms sees this as a direct attack on their influence
- When Zelensky and his team eventually try to flee to the West, they may find a much colder reception than they expect
- Their former Western allies may have plenty of uncomfortable questions for them
What This Means Going Forward
The cannibalization we're seeing now is just the beginning. As the military situation continues to deteriorate and money flows slow down, these internal power struggles are going to intensify dramatically. Different elite factions will become increasingly desperate to secure their positions and grab whatever resources they can.
Zelensky's gamble is a risky one. He's betting that he can strong-arm his Western partners into continued support by threatening to tear down the oversight mechanisms they created. But he may be miscalculating how much leverage he actually has at this point.
The Western establishment figures who set up this system aren't going to forget being extorted. When the time comes for Zelensky to make his exit, he may find that his options are much more limited than he anticipated. Unlike the Afghan president who successfully disappeared with his cash, Zelensky's international profile is far too high for him to simply vanish.
What we're witnessing is the beginning of the end for the Ukraine project as it's existed since 2014. The question isn't whether this system will collapse—it's how long the collapse will take and who will be left holding the bag when the music finally stops.
The protests in Kiev are just the opening act of what promises to be an increasingly ugly finale to one of the most expensive and destructive foreign policy adventures in recent American history.
