Iris Ferguson is a global adviser to Loom and a former U.S. deputy assistant secretary of defense for Arctic and global resilience. Ann Mettler is a distinguished visiting fellow at Columbia University’s Center on Global Energy Policy and a former director general of the European Commission. After much pressure, European leaders delayed a decision this week amid division on whether to tighten market access through a “Made in Europe” mandate and redouble efforts to reduce the bloc’s strategic dependencies — particularly on China. This decision may appear technocratic, but the hold-up signals its importance and reflects a larger strategic reality shared across the Atlantic. Security, industry and energy have all fused into a single race to control the systems that power modern economies and militaries. And increasingly, success will hinge on whether the U.S. and Europe can confront this reality together, starting with the one domain that’s shaping every other: energy. While traditional defense spending still grabs headlines, today’s battlefield is being reshaped just as profoundly by energy flows and critical inputs. Advanced batteries for drones, portable power for forward-deployed units and mineral supply chains for next-generation platforms — these all point to the simple truth that technological and operational superiority increasingly depends on who controls the next generation of energy systems. But as Europe and the U.S. look to maintain their edge, they must rethink not just how they produce and move energy, but how to secure the industrial base behind it. Energy sovereignty now sits at the center of our shared security, and in a world where adversaries can weaponize supply chains just as easily as airspace or sea lanes, the future will belong to those who build energy systems that are resilient and interoperable by design. The Pentagon already understands this. It has tested distributed power to shorten vulnerable fuel lines in war games across the Indo-Pacific; it has watched closely how mobile generation units keep the grid alive under Russian attack in Ukraine; and it is exploring ways to deliver energy without relying on exposed logistics via new research on solar power beaming. Each of these cases clearly demonstrates that strategic endurance now depends on energy agility and security. But currently, many of these systems depend on materials and manufacturing chains that are dominated by a strategic rival: From batteries and magnets to rare earth processing, China controls our critical inputs. This isn’t just an economic liability, it’s a national security vulnerability for both Europe and the U.S. We’re essentially building the infrastructure of the future with components that could be withheld, surveilled or compromised. That risk isn’t theoretical. China’s recent export controls on key minerals are already disrupting defense and energy manufacturers — a sharp reminder of how supply chain leverage can be a form of coercion, and of our reliance on a fragile ecosystem for the very technologies meant to make us more independent. So, how do we modernize our energy systems without deepening these unnecessary dependencies and build trusted interdependence among allies instead? The solution starts with a shift in mindset that must then translate into decisive policy action. Simply put, as a matter of urgency, energy and tech resilience must be treated as shared infrastructure, cutting across agencies, sectors and alliances. Defense procurement can be a catalyst here. For example, investing in dual-use technologies like advanced batteries, hardened micro-grids and distributed generation would serve both military needs and broader resilience. These aren’t just “green” tools — they’re strategic assets that improve mission effectiveness, while also insulating us from coercion. And done right, such investment can strengthen defense, accelerate innovation and also help drive down costs. Next, we need to build new coalitions for critical minerals, batteries, trusted manufacturing and cyber-secure infrastructure. Just as NATO was built for collective defense, we now need economic and technological alliances that ensure shared strategic autonomy. Both the upcoming White House initiative to strengthen the supply chain for artificial intelligence technology and the recently announced RESourceEU initiative to secure raw materials illustrate how partners are already beginning to rewire systems for resilience. Germany gave the bloc one such example by moving to reduce its reliance on Chinese-made wind components in favor of European suppliers. | Tan Kexing/Getty Images Finally, we must also address existing dependencies strategically and head-on. This means rethinking how and where we source key materials, including building out domestic and allied capacity in areas long neglected. Germany recently gave the bloc one such example by moving to reduce its reliance on Chinese-made wind components in favor of European suppliers. Moving forward, measures like this need EU-wide adoption. By contrast, in the U.S., strong bipartisan support for reducing reliance on China sits alongside proposals to halt domestic battery and renewable incentives, undercutting the very industries that enhance resilience and competitiveness. This is the crux of the matter. Ultimately, if Europe and the U.S. move in parallel rather than together, none of these efforts will succeed — and both will be strategically weaker as a result. The EU’s High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy Kaja Kallas recently warned that we must “act united” or risk being affected by Beijing’s actions — and she’s right. With a laser focus on interoperability and cost sharing, we could build systems that operate together in a shared market of close to 800 million people. The real challenge isn’t technological, it’s organizational. Whether it be Bretton Woods, NATO or the Marshall Plan, the West has strategically built together before, anchoring economic resilience with national defense. The difference today is that the lines between economic security, energy access and defense capability are fully blurred. Sustainable, agile energy is now part of deterrence, and long-term security depends on whether the U.S. and Europe can build energy systems that reinforce and secure one another. This is a generational opportunity for transatlantic alignment; a mutually reinforcing way to safeguard economic interests in the face of systemic competition. And to lead in this new era, we must design for it — together and intentionally. Or we risk forfeiting the very advantages our alliance was built to protect.

BRUSSELS — The military should get involved in the green transition to ensure that Russia doesn’t exploit new vulnerabilities brought about by the move to renewable energy sources, a top EU body said in a document obtained by POLITICO. The bloc has made efforts in recent years to end dependence on Russian fuels and move toward cleaner technology, and is set to ban Russian gas imports entirely under its broader REPowerEU roadmap. However, a letter drafted by the Danish presidency of the Council of the EU and sent on Nov. 28 to EU ambassadors argued that the transition also introduces “new layers of complexity” as Europe’s old energy architecture — including petrol stations, pipelines, refineries and other infrastructure — is phased out. That complicates supply chains on which militaries depend, requiring “enhanced energy independence and engagement in the green transition” by the transatlantic military alliance NATO. The letter, first reported on by Contexte, also calls for stronger coordination between NATO and the EU on energy policy. In particular, officials ought to look at how to protect Europe’s energy infrastructure amid an increase in “physical sabotage and cyberattacks targeting pipelines, cables, ports, and power grids,” it said. The digitization of many energy sources, it added, also requires “strong security measures throughout all phases of infrastructure planning, design, and operation.” The initiative will be discussed by energy ministers on Dec. 15.

High energy prices, risks on CBAM enforcement and promotion of lead markets, as well as increasing carbon costs are hampering domestic and export competitiveness with non-EU producers. The cement industry is fundamental to Europe’s construction value chain, which represents about 9 percent of the EU’s GDP. Its hard-to-abate production processes are also currently responsible for 4 percent of EU emissions, and it is investing heavily in measures aimed at achieving full climate neutrality by 2050, in line with the European Green Deal. Marcel Cobuz, CEO, TITAN Group  “We should take a longer view and ensure that the cement industry in EU stays competitive domestically and its export market shares are maintained.” However, the industry’s efforts to comply with EU environmental regulations, along with other factors, make it less competitive than more carbon-intensive producers from outside Europe. Industry body Cement Europe recently stated that, “without a competitive business model, the very viability of the cement industry and its prospects for industrial decarbonization are at risk.” Marcel Cobuz, member of the Board of the Global Cement and Concrete Association and CEO of TITAN Group, one of Europe’s leading producers, spoke with POLITICO Studio about the vital need for a clear policy partnership with Brussels to establish a predictable regulatory and financing framework to match the industry’s decarbonization ambitions and investment efforts to stay competitive in the long-term. POLITICO Studio: Why is the cement industry important to the EU economy?  Marcel Cobuz: Just look around and you will see how important it is. Cement helped to build the homes that we live in and the hospitals that care for us. It’s critical for our transport and energy infrastructure, for defense and increasingly for the physical assets supporting the digital economy. There are more than 200 cement plants across Europe, supporting nearby communities with high-quality jobs. The cement industry is also key to the wider construction industry, which employs 14.5 million people across the EU. At the same time, cement manufacturers from nine countries compete in the international export markets. PS: What differentiates Titan within the industry?  MC: We have very strong European roots, with a presence in 10 European countries. Sustainability is very much part of our DNA, so decarbonizing profitably is a key objective for us. We’ve reduced our CO2 footprint by nearly 25 percent since 1990, and we recently announced that we are targeting a similar reduction by 2030 compared to 2020. We are picking up pace in reducing emissions both by using conventional methods, like the use of alternative sources of low-carbon energy and raw materials, and advanced technologies. TITAN/photo© Nikos Daniilidis We have a large plant in Europe where we are exploring building one of the largest carbon capture projects on the continent, with support from the Innovation Fund, capturing close to two million tons of CO2 and producing close to three million tons of zero-carbon cement for the benefit of all European markets. On top of that, we have a corporate venture capital fund, which partners with startups from Europe to produce the materials of tomorrow with  very low or zero carbon. That will help not only TITAN but the whole industry to accelerate its way towards the use of new high-performance materials with a smaller carbon footprint. PS: What are the main challenges for the EU cement industry today?  MC: Several factors are making us less competitive than companies from outside the EU. Firstly, Europe is an expensive place when it comes to energy prices. Since 2021, prices have risen by close to 65 percent, and this has a huge impact on cement producers, 60 percent of whose costs are energy-related. And this level of costs is two to three times higher than those of our neighbors. We also face regulatory complexity compared to our outside competitors, and the cost of compliance is high. The EU Emissions Trading System (ETS) cost for the cement sector is estimated at €97 billion to €162 billion between 2023 and 2034. Then there is the need for low-carbon products to be promoted ― uptake is still at a very low level, which leads to an investment risk around new decarbonization technologies. > We should take a longer view and ensure that the cement industry in the EU > stays competitive domestically and its export market shares are maintained.” All in all, the playing field is far from level. Imports of cement into the EU have increased by 500 percent since 2016. Exports have halved ― a loss of value of one billion euros. The industry is reducing its cost to manufacture and to replace fossil fuels, using the waste of other industries, digitalizing its operations, and premiumizing its offers. But this is not always enough. Friendly policies and the predictability of a regulatory framework should accompany the effort. PS: In January 2026, the Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism will be fully implemented, aimed at ensuring that importers pay the same carbon price as domestic producers. Will this not help to level the playing field? MC: This move is crucial, and it can help in dealing with the increasing carbon cost. However, I believe we already see a couple of challenges regarding the CBAM. One is around self-declaration: importers declare the carbon footprint of their materials, so how do we avoid errors or misrepresentations? In time there should be audits of the importers’ industrial installations and co-operation with the authorities at source to ensure the data flow is accurate and constant. It really needs to be watertight, and the authorities need to be fully mobilized to make sure the real cost of carbon is charged to the importers. Also, and very importantly, we need to ensure that CBAM does not apply to exports from the EU to third countries, as carbon costs are increasingly a major factor making us uncompetitive outside the EU, in markets where we were present for more than 20 years. > CBAM really needs to be watertight, and the authorities need to be fully > mobilized to make sure the real cost of carbon is charged to the importers.” PS: In what ways can the EU support the European cement industry and help it to be more competitive? MC: By simplifying legislation and making it more predictable so we can plan our investments for the long term. More specifically, I’m talking about the revamping of the ETS, which in its current form implies a phase-down of CO2 rights over the next decade. First, we should take a longer view and ensure that the cement industry stays competitive and its export market shares are maintained, so a policy of more for longer should accompany the new ETS. > In export markets, the policy needs to ensure a level playing field for > European suppliers competing in international destination markets, through a > system of free allowances or CBAM certificates, which will enable exports to > continue.” We should look at it as a way of funding decarbonization. We could front-load part of ETS revenues in a fund that would support the development of technologies such as low-carbon materials development and CCS. The roll-out of Infrastructure for carbon capture projects such as transport or storage should also be accelerated, and the uptake of low-carbon products should be incentivized. More specifically on export markets, the policy needs to ensure a level playing field for European suppliers competing in international destination markets, through a system of free allowances or CBAM certificates, which will enable exports to continue. PS: Are you optimistic about the future of your industry in Europe?  MC: I think with the current system of phasing out CO2 rights, and if the CBAM is not watertight, and if energy prices remain several times higher than in neighboring countries, and if investment costs, particularly for innovating new technologies, are not going to be financed through ETS revenues, then there is an existential risk for at least part of the industry. Having said that, I’m optimistic that, working together with the European Commission we can identify the right policy making solutions to ensure our viability as a strategic industry for Europe. And if we are successful, it will benefit everyone in Europe, not least by guaranteeing more high-quality jobs and affordable and more energy-efficient materials for housing ― and a more sustainable and durable infrastructure in the decades ahead. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Disclaimer POLITICAL ADVERTISEMENT * The sponsor is Titan Group * The advertisement is linked to policy advocacy around industrial competitiveness, carbon pricing, and decarbonization in the EU cement and construction sectors, including the EU’s CBAM legislation, the Green Deal, and the proposed revision of the ETS. More information here.

EU countries are taking a harder look at who builds, owns and works on key infrastructure like ports, IT and rail — and that concern is now spilling into a wave of legislation aimed at countries like China. Sweden is the latest to move, proposing this week to give local authorities new powers to block “hostile states” from bidding on infrastructure if their involvement could threaten national security. “It’s part of a defense issue,” a Swedish official told POLITICO, describing growing worries about countries like China gaining access to public infrastructure. “We are acting very quickly on that, since we see a risk that hostile states might try to infiltrate infrastructure such as ports, but also IT solutions and energy infrastructure.” It’s also a worry in Poland, Austria and inside EU institutions — all of which are rushing to put in safeguards to block, or at least monitor, third-country investment in key tech and transport infrastructure. What accelerated Sweden’s move was a recent EU court ruling involving Turkish and Chinese companies bidding on two railway projects. Judges concluded that suppliers from countries without a free-trade agreement with the EU do not enjoy the same rights as EU firms — a reading Stockholm took as both a green light and a warning signal. Sweden’s new rules are due to take effect in 2027. No specific cases were cited, but the investigation repeatedly pointed to China — which also sits at the center of very similar concerns in Poland. Warsaw has long been uneasy about the scale of Chinese involvement in its ports. A new draft bill put forward by the country’s president would “adapt the existing regulations concerning the operation of ports, and in particular the ownership of real estate located within the boundaries of ports.” The president argued that the current model — state-owned port authorities holding land and infrastructure and leasing it long-term to terminal operators — needs tightening if the country wants to maintain control over assets of “fundamental importance to the national economy.” Gen. Dariusz Łuczak, former head of Poland’s Internal Security Agency and now adviser to the Special Services Commission, told Polish media late last month that “the most important provisions are those concerning the early termination of perpetual use agreements.” However, it’s unclear if the legislation will pass as President Karol Nawrocki is broadly opposed to the government led by Prime Minster Donald Tusk. The EU is also moving. Ana Miguel Pedro, a Portuguese member of the European Parliament with the center-right European People’s Party, told POLITICO in the spring that the growing presence of Chinese state-owned companies in European port terminals “is not just an economic concern, but a strategic vulnerability.” Those concerns appear in the bloc’s new military mobility package, which calls for member countries to put in place “stricter rules on the ownership and control of strategic dual use infrastructure.” Transport Commissioner Apostolos Tzitzikostas also flagged the Chinese presence in ports and said it will feature in the European Commission’s upcoming ports strategy, due in 2026. Austria has also been pushed into the debate after long-distance trains built by Chinese state-owned manufacturer CRRC rolled onto the Vienna-Salzburg line for the first time — triggering a political backlash. The country’s Mobility Minister Peter Hanke said the EU must tighten procurement and digital-security rules for state-backed rail purchases — and Vienna plans to propose new legislation before the end of the year. The Commission did not immediately respond to a request for comment. Industry is pushing Brussels to go even further. The European Rail Supply Industry Association argued that the bloc’s procurement rules are relics of an earlier era and asked the Commission to update them so companies from countries that shut out EU bidders cannot freely compete for European contracts. Sweden’s investigators saw the same risks. “Third-country suppliers without an agreement should not be given a more advantageous position than they have today and than other suppliers have,” Anneli Berglund Creutz, who led the Swedish government’s procurement review, told reporters. Contracting authorities, she added, should have the ability “to take into account the nationality of suppliers and to select suppliers from hostile states” — possibly excluding them “when that protects national security.”

Ukraine will import gas from Greece to help secure its energy supply for the coming winter, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy said on Sunday. The Ukrainian leader said the deal “will be another gas supply route to secure imports for the winter as much as possible.” The agreement will “cover nearly €2 billion needed for gas imports to compensate for the losses in Ukrainian production caused by Russian strikes,” Zelenskyy said in a statement. Ukraine has also prepared a deal with France for “a significant strengthening of our combat aviation, air defense, and other defense capabilities,” Zelenskyy said. The Ukrainian leader is in Athens Sunday to meet with Greek President Konstantinos Tasoulas and Prime Minister Kyriakos Mitsotakis. After visting France on Monday, Zelenskyy will travel to Spain on Tuesday. Spain is “another strong country that has joined the partners in the initiatives that really help us,” Zelenskyy said, although he did not mention a specific deal with Madrid. “Our top priorities today are air defense, systems and missiles for air defense,” Zelenskyy said in the statement. “Full financing will be secured” for the Greek deal from Ukranian government funds, funding from European banks with guarantees from the European Commission, Ukranian banks, with help from  “European partners” and Norway, the statement said. The country is also undertaking “active work” with partners in the U.S., it said. Ukraine is also working with Poland and Azerbaijan on energy supplies, and “we very much count on long-term contracts,” Zelenskyy said.  

BRUSSELS — The EU is seeking reassurances from Ukraine over future financial support to the country after a far-reaching corruption probe revealed a $100 million kickback scheme tied to its energy sector. Ukrainian anti-corruption agencies revealed this week that some of Volodymyr Zelenskyy’s close associates were allegedly involved in the plot, prompting the Ukrainian president to issue sanctions against his former business partner and dismiss several senior ministers. That’s divided Kyiv’s European partners. For many, the revelations are a positive sign of the continued independence of Ukraine’s anti-graft watchdogs. Some, however, want concrete commitments from the country that show it is serious about preventing similar incidents in the future. “The endemic corruption” revealed in the probe is “revolting,” said one EU official, who, like others for this story, was granted anonymity to speak freely on the sensitive matter, and “won’t help” the country’s reputation with international partners. “It will mean [the European] Commission will surely have to reassess how it spends” funds on Kyiv’s energy sector, the official argued, adding that in the future, “Ukraine will have to give more attention and transparency in how it spends cash.” “We expect Ukraine to press ahead with anti-corruption measures and reforms in its own country,” German Chancellor Friedrich Merz said Thursday, after calling Zelenskyy.  The president “needs to comfort everyone,” added an EU government official, “most likely with a plan on how to fix corruption.” The scandal comes at a delicate time for Ukraine. The country is facing a €41 billion budget crunch next year, while EU countries are currently deadlocked over unblocking a €140 billion reparations loan for Kyiv from frozen Russian assets. Ukraine’s foreign and energy ministries didn’t respond to POLITICO’s request for comment. But on Wednesday, Zelenskyy said “there must be maximum integrity in the energy sector in absolutely all processes,” adding: “I support … every investigation carried out by law enforcement and anti-corruption officials.” HIGH WIRE ACT So far, the scandal — the worst to hit Zelenskyy since he took office in 2019 — is not prompting allies to threaten to cut aid to Ukraine. On Thursday, the EU confirmed it would earmark €6 billion in new aid for Ukraine. Earlier this week, Estonia officially approved an additional €150,000 for Kyiv’s energy sector, while Germany is reportedly considering a €3 billion top-up for the country next year. As they met at the G7 on Wednesday and flocked to Warsaw for the EU-Ukraine Investment Conference on Thursday, allies sought to put on a united front. In recent months, Moscow has ramped up its bombing campaign on Ukraine’s critical energy infrastructure, pummelling its gas production facilities and coal power plants. | Maxym Marusenko/NurPhoto via Getty Images “It is painful to see how corruption affects the energy sector, especially as winter approaches and Russia continues its brutal attacks on energy infrastructure,” said Lithuanian Energy Minister Žygimantas Vaičiūnas. But we “stand firmly with the people of Ukraine — our support will not stop,” he told POLITICO. Ending aid for Kyiv’s battered energy sector would have a “terrible” impact ahead of this winter, said Aura Sabadus, a senior energy analyst specializing in eastern Europe at the ICIS energy consultancy. In recent months, Moscow has ramped up its bombing campaign on Ukraine’s critical energy infrastructure, pummelling its gas production facilities and coal power plants. As a result, the country has secured €500 million in aid from the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development to buy up emergency gas imports. Behind closed doors, Ukraine’s EU backers are also wary that being too vocal could feed into its opponents’ narratives aimed at discrediting Kyiv and scuppering its efforts to join the bloc. “A wartime mafia network with countless ties to President Zelenskyy has been exposed,” Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán, a consistent critic of Ukraine, claimed on social media on Thursday. “This is the chaos into which the Brusselian elite want to pour European taxpayers’ money.” “By [highlighting] corruption scandals, they only give ammo to those like Hungary who are saying it is a corrupt nation,” said one EU diplomat. “Those who are opposed to Ukraine … will milk this for all it’s worth,” added a second diplomat. A former senior Ukrainian official said he expected Brussels to double down on making some funding conditional on reforms. “But the overall taboo on criticizing Ukraine in public will hold,” he said. CLEANING UP Ukraine’s defenders say the probe is limited to one company, arguing international backers shouldn’t punish the energy sector as a result. But some allies still want to see more reforms. Up until now, the investigation has largely focused on Energoatom, Ukraine’s state nuclear energy company, accusing seven officials of manipulating contracts to extract kickbacks worth 10-15 percent of contract values. “There will be a cleansing and reset of Energoatom’s management,” Zelenskyy said Wednesday. In total, the Commission has granted “more than €3 billion” in energy-related aid to Kyiv since 2022, a spokesperson for the EU executive said. Around one tenth of that has been channeled through the Energy Community, an international organization that supplies Ukraine with in-kind energy equipment like transformers based on requests from Kyiv. In total, it has mobilized €1.5 billion in donations from Ukraine’s western partners. Energy Community Director Artur Lorkowski called the scandal “frustrating.” But at the Vienna-based organization, the corruption “risk is mitigated,” he said, since it retains “full control” over the coordination, purchase and post-arrival monitoring of the equipment — with procurement handled by an independent agency in the U.K. The EBRD, meanwhile, has allocated €3.1 billion in aid to Ukraine’s energy sector, a bank spokesperson said, around a third of its total support since 2022. Its “very robust procurement requirements,” including open tenders and direct payments to contractors, they said, gives the bank a “very high degree of comfort” for future donations. Still, others argue there is still a long way to go in eliminating corruption in the sector. Going forward, Ukraine should make its energy sector more transparent and give reassurances to its European partners that their money will be well spent, two EU diplomats and two European government officials said. “This is also a chance to cleanse and rebuild stronger,” said Vaičiūnas, the minister. Andrii Zhupanyn, an MP from Zelenskyy’s ruling Servant of the People party who sits on the parliament’s energy committee, agreed. Kyiv should start by improving the corporate governance of state-owned energy firms and strengthening their supervisory boards, he said, adding: “More transparency is necessary for sure.” Tim Ross, Jamie Dettmer and Veronika Mekoverova contributed to this report.

German Chancellor Friedrich Merz urged Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy in a call Thursday to sort out the country’s corruption problems as Kyiv faces the fallout of a massive scandal involving kickbacks. “The chancellor emphasized the German government’s expectation that Ukraine will vigorously advance the fight against corruption and continue reforms, particularly in the area of the rule of law,” the chancellor’s spokesman said. The government in Kyiv has been rocked by a corruption scandal this week involving allegations of kickbacks at a state nuclear energy company adding up to roughly $100 million. Zelenskyy wasn’t directly implicated, but the scandal strikes close to his inner circle and has led to the resignation of two ministers. German government officials worry news of corruption in Ukraine will undermine public support for the embattled country. Merz has sought to strongly back Ukraine at a time when many European officials see the Trump administration as waffling on U.S. military support. Germany has provided more weapons aid to Ukraine than any other European country. Zelenskyy “pledged complete transparency, long-term support for the independent anti-corruption authorities, and further swift measures to regain the trust of the Ukrainian people, European partners, and international donors,” Merz’s spokesman also said. Zelenskyy thanked the chancellor for German military support “particularly in the areas of air defense and protection of Ukraine’s energy infrastructure,” according to the chancellor’s spokesman. “Germany, together with its Western partners, will increase pressure on Moscow to persuade Russia to engage in serious negotiations,” he added, including by “continuing work on making more effective use of immobilized Russian state assets.”

KYIV — Ukraine was roiled this week by the most damaging corruption scandal of Volodymyr Zelenskyy’s presidency.  Ukrainian anti-corruption agencies revealed Monday that some of Zelenskyy’s close associates were allegedly involved in a plot to skim around $100 million from Ukraine’s energy sector. The scandal erupted as Ukrainians suffer blackouts caused by Russian bombing. The state said it had spent tens of millions of euros to protect energy infrastructure from drones and missiles. “Any effective action against corruption is very necessary,” Zelenskyy warned Monday night. “The inevitability of punishment is necessary.” We explain below what’s at stake as the corruption probe snowballs to implicate key allies of Zelenskyy.  WHO CRACKED THE CASE? Ukraine’s state anti-corruption watchdogs — the National Anti-Corruption Bureau of Ukraine, or NABU, and the Special Anti-Corruption Prosecutor’s Office, or SAP — dismantled an alleged criminal organization that consisted of current and former energy officials, a noted businessman, government ministers and a former deputy prime minister. The probe, which lasted 15 months and was called “Operation Midas,” involved 1,000 hours of wiretapping and resulted in the seizure of bags of cash. The agency said five of the seven alleged participants in the scheme have been detained. The group is accused of manipulating contracts at Energoatom, Ukraine’s state nuclear energy company, to extract kickbacks worth 10-15 percent of contract values. Investigators say the network laundered roughly $100 million through a secret Kyiv-based office. WHO’S IN THE FRAME? Over the last few days, some names of high-profile suspects were revealed to the public during online court sessions. Businessman Timur Mindich, a close ally of Zelenskyy, might be the most interesting name in the crosshairs of prosecutors — but more on him later.   The most prominent is current Justice Minister German Galushchenko, who was suspended from his post Wednesday morning. He was energy minister until July before Zelenskyy reshuffled his government. Prosecutors said Galushchenko assisted Mindich in his money-laundering schemes and was influenced by the businessman. Although he has not been charged, the accusations triggered his suspension. Galushchenko said he supports the suspension, but added he will defend himself in court if needed. Oleksiy Chernyshov, former deputy prime minister of Ukraine and a close ally of Zelenskyy, was identified in NABU recordings under the codename “Che Guevara.” NABU charged him with illicit enrichment, alleging he received about $1.2 million and nearly €100,000 through the money-laundering network.  Chernyshov, who has been under investigation in a separate corruption case since the summer, could not be reached for comment. He has largely stayed out of the public eye after being recalled from a work trip abroad earlier this year to face questioning. Another top official named was Ihor Myroniuk, an ex-adviser to Galushchenko and former deputy head of the State Property Fund. Myroniuk’s lawyer called accusations that his client illicitly enriched himself and was a member of criminal organization baseless. Dmytro Basov, former head of the Energoatom security department and identified as “Tenor” on the tapes, was also named. Basov’s lawyer said his client did not cause any financial harm to the state and that investigators have no case. Basov denied any wrongdoing during a court session Wednesday. IS THERE JUST A SINGLE INVESTIGATION? NABU and SAP actually have at least two major probes underway.  The new one, as noted above, focuses on the state nuclear power company, Energoatom. But there’s also another ongoing investigation into alleged graft involving inflated military procurement contracts, and more NABU raids on the defense ministry are expected in the coming days.  According to prosecutors, Rustem Umerov, former defense minister and current secretary of Ukraine’s State Security and Defense Council, was pressured to agree to buy cheaply made Chinese bulletproof vests for inflated prices in another case investigated by NABU. The state did not pay for the vests after poor performance in military testing. Umerov has not been charged and said he is innocent of any wrongdoing. Umerov admitted in a Facebook post that he met Mindich (yep, him again) to discuss the body armor contract, but it was terminated due to the product’s failure to meet requirements, no items were ever delivered, and he denied any pressure.  “Any attempts to link my work at the ministry of defense with the ‘influence’ of certain individuals are unfounded,” Umerov added. TELL ME MORE ABOUT ZELENSKYY’S BUSINESS PARTNER. According to NABU, the alleged ringleader in the purported energy sector kickbacks plot is Mindich, a co-owner of the president’s Kvartal 95 film production company.  Since Zelenskyy was elected in 2019 as president, Mindich has developed financial interests in several industries.  The 46-year-old is from the city of Dnipro and was a former business partner of Ukrainian oligarch Ihor Kolomoisky, who helped fund Zelenskyy’s successful presidential election campaign.  Mindich introduced Zelenskyy to Kolomoisky, who’s now in jail in Kyiv awaiting trial on embezzlement and fraud charges after being arrested by the Security Service of Ukraine in 2023. According to NABU, Mindich was tipped off and fled to Israel prior to being charged in the energy case. The agency is now investigating who might have alerted him.  Mindich could not be reached for comment. IS ZELENSKYY IMPLICATED? Not directly.  Zelenskyy welcomed the latest probes this week, saying in his regular nightly address to the nation that action against corruption is good.  In the summer, Zelenskyy’s office and the parliament in Kyiv tried to strip the independence of NABU and SAP and place them under the supervision of Ukraine’s prosecutor general, a political appointee.  The move, which coincided with signs that the watchdogs were probing presidential insiders, prompted the first major anti-government street protests since Russia’s full-scale invasion began in 2022. With the EU also urging a rethink, Zelenskyy reversed course.

KYIV — Top corruption watchdogs said they carried out dozens of raids Monday across Ukraine during an investigation into the energy sector. The National Anti-Corruption Bureau of Ukraine (NABU) and the Special Anti-Corruption Prosecutor’s Office (SAP) are probing top officials at Ukraine’s state energy companies, including nuclear energy operator Energoatom. Searches took place two days after Russia launched its largest attack yet against the Ukrainian energy system, including nuclear plants and electric substations, and hammered power operator Сentrеgenergo’s electricity-generating capacity. Lengthy blackouts are still occurring throughout the country, as authorities struggle to restore power, while Ukrainians question whether energy facilities were properly protected from Russian attacks. NABU said its 15-month investigation and 1,000 hours of wiretapping involving the bureau’s entire staff culminated Monday in 70 raids. Some of the wiretappings were from July, the same month Ukraine’s government and parliament tried to strip NABU of its independence and bring it under political control, citing Russian influence on the bureau — in a move that was later reversed following nationwide protests. NABU refused to reveal the names of the main suspects in the corruption probe, but said there were noted businesspeople and energy officials among the alleged perpetrators.  The main goal of the scheme they co-organized, according to NABU, was to obtain illegal benefits amounting to 10-15 percent of a state contract value — theoretically running into the millions of euros — from counterparts of Energoatom, including companies involved in building protective structures for energy infrastructure. Energoatom declined to comment due to the ongoing investigation.

Several Ukrainian regions suffered power outages on Sunday after Russia launched what the state grid operator called the “most massive strike” against Ukraine’s power plants since the beginning of Moscow’s full-scale invasion of the country. Kyiv responded with a counterattack of drones overnight into Sunday, targeting energy infrastructure and leaving the Russian city of Voronezh and around 20,000 people without electricity, Reuters and AFP reported. Ukraine’s grid operator said the Russian strikes hit its energy plants continually from Friday into Saturday, and the country’s generation capacity was “zero” on Saturday. The Russian assault included hundreds of drones and dozens of missiles. “We lost everything we were restoring 24 hours a day! Every time the enemy strikes even more brutally, even more cynically,” the operator said in a post on Facebook. The company scheduled power cuts that can last up to 16 hours in some regions, as it works to repair the power supply. “Emergency power cuts have been introduced in a number of regions of Ukraine,” Energy Minister Svitlana Vasylivna Hrynchuk said on Telegram. They “will be canceled after the situation in the power system stabilizes.” The main targets of the attack were the Kyiv, Dnipropetrovsk and Poltava regions, according to the Ukrainian air force. The Russian strikes have targeted energy, heat and water supplies in many Ukrainian cities, as well as the Khmelnytskyi and Rivne nuclear plants, Ukraine’s Foreign Minister Andrii Sybiha said. “Russia is deliberately endangering nuclear safety in Europe. We call for an urgent meeting of the IAEA Board of Governors to respond to these unacceptable risks,” Sybiha wrote on X.