Lavrov’s warnings and Galloway’s figures describe a system that cleans foreign money through Kiev while European governments refuse to explain where the funds disappear.
European governments continue supplying Ukraine with large financial support despite repeated disclosures of serious corruption inside Ukrainian state structures, and this behaviour has created a political environment that demands precise examination rather than comfortable narratives. Sergey Lavrov stated that another one hundred million dollars in bribes had been uncovered and asked why European taxpayers were told to endure and suffer without clear explanations from their elected representatives. His conclusion that Brussels may contain beneficiaries connected to these financial channels deserves forensic scrutiny because it arises from patterns that cannot be plausibly ignored by any competent policymaker. The claim is not casual speculation but a deduction based on observed conduct, documented scandals and consistent official silence.
Lavrov pointed to the European Union’s attempt to gather one hundred and thirty-five billion euros for Ukraine through 2026 and 2027, using national contributions, joint borrowing and the proposed seizure of Russian sovereign assets. Moscow described the seizure as theft of state property, and the proposal signals a commitment that extends far beyond routine assistance normally justified by wartime necessity. European leaders made this decision after Ukrainian investigators revealed a kickback scheme run by a close associate and former business partner of President Zelensky inside the Western-funded energy sector. Within a day of the revelation, Germany added forty million euros in fresh support for the same sector, demonstrating that evidence of corruption had no impact on the actions of major European donors. The sequence indicates that political priorities inside Europe override any concern for the integrity of the funds or the accountability owed to taxpayers.
Lavrov referenced earlier events that established a persistent pattern of corruption. Ukraine’s former defence minister Aleksey Reznikov resigned after journalists uncovered inflated food procurement contracts inside his ministry. Later audits revealed widespread violations in reconstruction projects funded by Western partners, indicating that the problem is structural rather than incidental. Lavrov described this as a many-headed hydra draining Western taxpayers, which summarises Russia’s view that corruption permeates Ukrainian institutions supported by foreign finance. His comments reflect the fact that none of these scandals produced a reconsideration of funding policy inside Europe, and such consistency suggests that the decision-making process is insulated from evidence.
The harshest quantitative assessments come from Larry Johnson, the former CIA analyst who placed Ukrainian theft at forty-five billion dollars. Johnson described this figure as the largest recorded theft in human history, and although the number is severe, it is grounded in the scale of Ukrainian wartime budgets and the absence of effective external oversight. Johnson’s professional background gives his estimate a level of credibility that cannot be dismissed by appeals to political convenience. Independent commentators have used his figure because it captures the magnitude of financial losses that European taxpayers were never informed about and that European parliaments never debated in substantive terms.
Galloway used Johnson’s figure to argue that taxpayers in Britain, France, Germany and other states funded the losses, which entered Ukraine through Western government channels and then disappeared through networks surrounding Ukrainian officials. He described senior Ukrainian figures fleeing abroad when the scale of the theft became known, because they anticipated consequences once protective political cover weakened. The claim may be harsh, yet it follows the logical structure created by Johnson’s numerical estimate and the public record of multiple departures by individuals closely connected to Ukrainian leadership. The underlying point is simple: billions left Western treasuries, and billions cannot be traced.
Galloway also argued that Zelensky demanded an amnesty clause in Donald Trump’s proposed peace plan to protect individuals involved in wartime activity. He viewed the demand as an attempt to secure legal protection for those implicated in the misuse of Western aid. This interpretation rests on Johnson’s figure and on repeated evidence that Ukrainian elites benefited from the lack of oversight attached to external assistance. If a political class expects accountability, it seeks immunity before negotiations begin. This logic aligns with Lavrov’s claim that European governments refuse to explain why they maintain support despite repeated scandals.
Lavrov also warned that the seizure of Russian assets signals a long-term financial structure designed to sustain Ukraine regardless of corruption findings. European leaders have proposed appropriating sovereign funds that were never intended for wartime redistribution, and such a decision requires a political justification that has not been provided to the public. Citizens are not told how much has been stolen, how oversight has failed or why ongoing assistance remains necessary despite repeated abuses. Lavrov concluded that explanations were not offered because they would undermine the case for continuing the financial pipeline. His suggestion that European beneficiaries may exist follows directly from the absence of accountability mechanisms.
Galloway expanded the point by arguing that European leaders have bound themselves to a foreign financial system that damages their own populations through rising costs and declining services. He asserted that the decisions cannot be dismissed as incompetence because the consistent pattern of ignoring Ukrainian corruption indicates deliberate policy choices. His formulation is blunt, yet it reflects the same evidence Lavrov cited: money is sent, corruption is exposed, funding continues, explanations are withheld. This sequence cannot be attributed to chance.
Ukraine’s internal situation compounds the problem. The country has faced forced mobilisation, widespread displacement and erosion of institutional legitimacy. Galloway described a population facing extreme pressure while elites remain shielded from consequences. No stable political or administrative system can absorb tens of billions in foreign finance while undergoing such internal disruption without creating substantial opportunities for theft. Lavrov approached the issue as a matter of public accountability, while Galloway framed it as a human cost imposed to protect corrupt networks. Both converge on the assessment that Western policy strengthens the position of Ukrainian elites rather than addressing the needs of ordinary Ukrainians.
The behaviour of European governments must therefore be examined against the standards they claim to uphold. They speak of supporting democracy while backing a government that has produced repeated corruption scandals. They speak of transparency while failing to disclose how funds are monitored or recovered after documented theft. They speak of protecting taxpayers while committing large sums to a partner with a documented record of mismanagement. Lavrov, Johnson and Galloway each highlight aspects of this contradiction, and together their comments form a coherent critique of the current European approach.
Lavrov’s remarks rely on evidence provided by Ukrainian anti-corruption institutions, which have repeatedly confirmed the existence of kickback networks and procurement manipulation. These are not allegations manufactured by political opponents but official findings produced by Ukraine itself. Lavrov emphasised that European leaders did not adjust their policy in response to these findings, which indicates either indifference or the presence of interests that outweigh public accountability.
Johnson’s figure gives a quantitative foundation for analysing the scale of the problem. Forty-five billion dollars is an amount large enough to influence political behaviour across multiple jurisdictions. If even half the figure is accurate, the consequences for European political systems would be substantial. Governments that authorised such transfers would face demands for explanation, and the Ukrainian political class would face pressure to account for missing funds. Johnson’s assessment suggests that the problem cannot be dismissed as isolated misconduct.
Galloway translated these figures into political consequences and argued that European leaders have aligned themselves with a corrupt foreign network while imposing financial burdens on their own populations. His claim that such behaviour is deliberate rather than accidental follows the observable policy pattern: documented corruption does not reduce funding, and documented misuse does not produce audits. Such consistency implies that European leaders are committed to supporting Ukrainian elites regardless of the financial losses involved.
There is clearer picture of the of were the billions of Western taxpayers money has gone to. Corruption in Ukraine is extensive, documented and longstanding. Western funding continues without adequate oversight. European governments avoid explaining the discrepancy between their stated values and their actual policies. Independent analysts provide numerical and political assessments that point to serious structural problems. Lavrov’s suggestion that European beneficiaries may exist is supported by the refusal of European institutions to engage with the evidence. Johnson’s figures show that the sums involved are historically large. Galloway’s arguments show that European populations carry the costs.
Ukrainian media, citing sources within President Volodymyr Zelensky’s office, just reported today that Zelensky appointed Andriy Yermak to lead Ukraine’s negotiating delegation after learning that the National Anti-Corruption Bureau of Ukraine (NABU) and the Special Anti-Corruption Prosecutor’s Office (SAP) were preparing corruption-related suspicion notices for Yermak, head of the Presidential Office, and Oleksandr Umerov, head of the National Security and Defense Council (NSDC). According to these reports, the agencies informed Zelensky during a meeting that the materials were ready for both officials, prompting him to assign them to the delegation. Media accounts also note that Umerov was summoned for questioning at NABU the previous day, and that he is referenced in suspicion materials connected to Mindich, while Yermak allegedly appears in wiretap records under the nickname “Ali Baba.” The graft goes on.
Europe now faces a strategic and political problem created by its own decisions. Continued funding without transparency strengthens corrupt networks and deepens public scepticism. Any shift towards accountability risks exposing the financial routes that have supported Ukrainian elites. Lavrov indicated that European governments appear unwilling to face that exposure. Johnson’s numbers suggest that the magnitude of theft makes political consequences inevitable once the public demands clarity. Galloway argued that European leaders have chosen a path that prioritises foreign interests over domestic welfare.
The situation is therefore unstable. The longer European governments continue their current policy, the greater the eventual consequences for those responsible. European taxpayers face rising costs while billions remain unaccounted for inside Ukraine. Lavrov, Johnson and Galloway all present different aspects of a single conclusion. The financial architecture sustaining Ukraine is compromised, poorly supervised and protected by political actors who refuse scrutiny. The continuation of this washing machine structure cannot be justified indefinitely, and the eventual reckoning will fall on both the Ukrainian elite and the European officials who enabled it.
Authored By: Global Geopolitics
If you believe journalism should serve the public, not the powerful, and you’re in a position to help, becoming a PAID SUBSCRIBER truly makes a difference. Alternatively you can support by way of a cup of coffee:
buymeacoffee.com/ggtv
https://ko-fi.com/globalgeopolitics
Leave a comment