The Arrest at the Border and the Rule of Law in Ukraine: A Turning Point or a Test?

Tuesday 17 February 2026

On the night of 15 February 2026 Ukrainian anti-corruption authorities detained Herman Galushchenko, the former Minister of Energy who also served briefly as Minister of Justice, as he attempted to cross the state border by train. Galushchenko was removed from the carriage by detectives of the National Anti-Corruption Bureau of Ukraine (NABU) acting on instructions from the Specialised Anti-Corruption Prosecutor’s Office (SAPO). The arrest occurred in the context of an expansive graft investigation codename Operation Midas, which has shaken Kyiv’s political establishment and drawn international attention to Ukraine’s struggle to enforce the rule of law amidst war and reform pressures. 

Galushchenko’s detention was not a fleeting news item but a significant moment in Ukraine’s evolving judicial landscape. Prosecutors allege that he was involved in money-laundering and kickbacks linked to a $100 million-plus corruption scheme centred on Energoatom, the state nuclear energy company. The breadth of the allegations extends beyond a single ministry: senior officials, associates close to President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, and prominent business figures have been implicated in the sprawling case. Some have resigned; others deny wrongdoing. 

Galushchenko’s decision to attempt to leave the country, shortly before news of his arrest became public, raised questions in the court of public opinion. Under martial law men under sixty are generally prohibited from leaving Ukraine, and this unusual circumstance prompted heightened scrutiny. The authorities have maintained that the actions taken by NABU and SAPO were lawful, based on court sanctions and grounded in criminal procedure. 

Viewed in isolation the arrest of a single former official might be easily dismissed as another chapter in a long tale of political scandal. Yet in the broader context of Ukraine’s ongoing efforts to break entrenched patterns of corruption, it speaks to a more profound dynamic: the tension between political power and legal accountability.

A History of Struggles in the Fight Against Corruption

Since 2014, and particularly after the full-scale Russian invasion in 2022, Ukraine has sought to reframe herself as a state governed by law rather than by patronage or oligarchic influence. Western partners, notably the European Union and the United States, have made anti-corruption reforms a condition of financial, military and political support. Each successive anti-graft drive has, for many Ukrainians, been a litmus test of whether Kyiv will follow through on these commitments.

Operation Midas — under which Galushchenko is implicated — began more than a year ago, and investigators have conducted dozens of searches and interviews across Ukraine. The investigation has produced thousands of hours of recorded conversations alleged to reveal corrupt conduct at the highest levels of government and state enterprise. Galushchenko’s apparent involvement, alongside others with direct influence over strategic sectors, highlights just how deeply graft can penetrate into state structures. 

Rule of Law Under Strain — or Strengthened?

The central question before Ukraine now is whether this arrest exemplifies the strengthening of the rule of law, or whether it reveals cracks in the very institutions intended to uphold it.

To many Ukrainians and international observers, the ability of NABU and SAPO to pursue a former minister — someone who has occupied the highest echelons of government — and to detain him at the border suggests that no individual is above legal scrutiny. Such actions signal an ongoing maturity of judicial and enforcement mechanisms that, a decade ago, might have faltered before political pressure. The fact that the arrest was executed with documented legal authorisation, and not through extrajudicial means, is an important procedural milestone in itself. 

Yet scepticism remains. Critics argue that high-profile corruption probes sometimes risk becoming entangled in political rivalries, with prosecutions perceived at times to serve political ends rather than purely legal ones. Until courts deliver final verdicts, and appeals are exhausted, public confidence in the fairness of these proceedings will be shaped as much by transparency as by outcome.

Moreover the arrest raises questions about how Ukraine balances the rule of law with the pressing demands of wartime governance. Under martial law restrictions on movement and powers granted to security services complicate the usual civil liberties that underpin democratic systems. Ensuring that these extraordinary measures do not inadvertently erode the norms they aim to protect is a lasting challenge.

Broader Implications for Ukraine’s Euro-Atlantic Aspirations

Ukraine’s leaders have long asserted that reform and rule-of-law progress are central to the country’s aspirations for closer integration with the European Union. The arrest of a former cabinet member in a major corruption probe will figure prominently in Brussels’ assessments of Ukraine’s accession progress. For many EU officials the vigorous pursuit of corrupt actors — not merely rhetoric — is the true benchmark of reform.

Likewise Kyiv’s Western supporters will observe whether this case leads to fair trials, credible convictions, and no sense of selective justice. The international community’s willingness to continue assistance — financial, military, and political — hinges in no small measure on Ukraine’s demonstrated commitment to judicial integrity and public accountability.

The detention of Herman Galushchenko at the border is more than a dramatic news story. It is a reflection of Ukraine’s broader struggle with corruption and a test of the institutions that underpin its fledgling democracy. In a nation where public trust in governance has historically been fragile, the transition from scandal to accountability must be handled with rigour, openness and patience.

If Ukraine successfully pursues corruption cases while upholding the principles of due process, it will send a strong message: that even in war, even amidst political complexity, the rule of law is not an abstraction but a lived reality. The outcome of this case, and its reception at home and abroad, will be watched closely — not only as a measure of justice in a single instance, but as a barometer of Ukraine’s legal and moral compass.