Ukraine's Corruption Crisis Threatens the War Effort From Within

Watch the Episode

Video originally published on November 22, 2025.

As 2025 draws to a close, Ukraine finds itself in a position few predicted at the outset of Russia's full-scale invasion. Nearly four years into a conflict that global analysts expected to end in weeks with Russian tanks rolling through Kyiv, Ukraine has achieved the improbable: holding one of the world's largest militaries at bay along Europe's eastern frontier. With substantial backing from the United States and European allies, Ukrainian forces have ensured that Vladimir Putin's war will not conclude with a white flag raised over the capital. Yet this remarkable military resilience masks a crisis that has haunted Ukraine long before the first Russian columns crossed its borders—a crisis that now threatens to accomplish what Moscow's military could not. In November 2025, Ukrainian anti-corruption authorities unveiled Operation Midas, exposing a massive embezzlement scheme that siphoned tens of millions of euros from the nation's battered energy infrastructure. The scandal implicates members of President Volodymyr Zelenskyy's inner circle and reaches into the highest levels of government, striking at the worst possible moment: as Ukraine heads into another brutal winter, as international support proves critical to forcing a ceasefire, and as European nations must be persuaded to open their wallets once more. This is not merely a political embarrassment. It represents an existential threat that could trigger a collapse in Kyiv more devastating than any Russian offensive.

Key Takeaways

Ukraine has survived four years of Russian invasion, defying early predictions of rapid collapse, thanks to Western aid and resilient defense.
Operation Midas, a 15‑month anti‑corruption probe, uncovered a massive embezzlement scheme siphoning roughly $100 million from state energy companies, involving high‑ranking officials and close allies of President Zelenskyy.
The corruption scandal threatens Ukraine’s war effort by diverting critical funds needed to repair energy infrastructure, purchase air‑defense systems, and maintain civilian morale.
International donors, especially the U.S. and EU, face renewed scrutiny as the scandal raises doubts about the integrity of Ukraine’s financial management and could jeopardize future aid.
The scandal risks political destabilization in Kyiv, potentially triggering resignations, investigations, or even a government collapse that could weaken Ukraine’s strategic position against Russia.
Ukrainian soldiers’ morale and desertion rates are already low; the scandal could accelerate desertions, undermining front‑line effectiveness during the harsh winter.

Four Years of Defiance: Ukraine's Unexpected Military Endurance

The conventional wisdom in early 2022 gave Ukraine days, perhaps weeks, before capitulation. Military analysts worldwide assessed that Russia's numerical superiority, combined with its established military infrastructure and experience, would overwhelm Ukrainian defenses rapidly. The expectation of a swift Russian victory was nearly universal among defense establishments in Washington, London, Brussels, and beyond. Yet as 2025 nears its end, Ukraine remains standing—battered, strained, but unbroken. This sustained resistance represents one of the most significant military surprises of the twenty-first century. Ukraine has not merely survived; it has fought Russia to a grinding stalemate along multiple fronts, inflicting substantial casualties and forcing Moscow to abandon its initial objectives of regime change and territorial conquest on a grand scale. The Ukrainian military, bolstered by Western training, intelligence sharing, and a steady flow of advanced weaponry, has demonstrated tactical innovation and strategic adaptability that confounded predictions. The international community's role in this achievement cannot be overstated. American military aid, European financial support, and a coordinated sanctions regime against Russia have provided Ukraine with the resources necessary to sustain operations across a front line stretching hundreds of kilometers. This assistance has encompassed everything from artillery shells and air defense systems to humanitarian aid and budgetary support for basic government functions. The partnership between Ukraine and its Western backers has evolved into one of the most significant military assistance programs since the Cold War. Yet this very success has created new vulnerabilities. As the conflict has stretched from weeks into years, the initial surge of international solidarity has faced inevitable pressures. Donor fatigue, shifting political winds in Western capitals, and competing global crises have all complicated Ukraine's position. The country's ability to continue its defense depends not only on battlefield performance but on maintaining the confidence and commitment of allies whose publics are increasingly questioning the costs and duration of support. It is precisely at this juncture—when Ukraine's need for sustained international backing is most acute—that the corruption scandal has erupted, threatening to undermine the very foundation of Western assistance.

The Oligarchic Legacy: Post-Soviet Privatization and Entrenched Power

To understand the depth of Ukraine's corruption problem requires examining its roots in the chaotic privatization that followed the Soviet Union's collapse. Like other post-Soviet states, Ukraine underwent a rapid and often lawless transition from centrally planned economy to market capitalism. This process created opportunities for well-connected insiders to acquire state assets at fractions of their true value, establishing a class of oligarchs whose wealth and influence would shape Ukrainian politics for decades. These oligarchs did not simply accumulate wealth; they constructed parallel power structures that penetrated every level of government and civil society. Through control of major industries, media outlets, and political parties, they established a system where formal democratic institutions coexisted with informal networks of patronage and influence. The oligarchic model became self-perpetuating: wealth generated political power, which in turn protected and expanded wealth, creating a closed loop resistant to reform. Ukraine's position on international corruption indices reflects this entrenched reality. In 2024, the country scored just thirty-five points out of one hundred on the Corruption Perceptions Index, placing it alongside Serbia and barely ahead of Turkey, Brazil, and pre-revolutionary Nepal. This ranking is not merely a matter of perception; it reflects measurable realities in how Ukrainian institutions function, how contracts are awarded, how justice is administered, and how public resources are allocated. The persistence of this system has created a fundamental tension in Ukraine's national identity and international aspirations. The country's stated goal of European integration—of joining the European Union and NATO—requires meeting governance standards that are incompatible with oligarchic control and systemic corruption. Yet the very actors who would lose most from genuine reform often occupy positions that allow them to obstruct or co-opt reform efforts. This dynamic has produced a pattern of episodic anti-corruption campaigns that generate headlines but fail to dismantle underlying structures. The war with Russia has complicated this picture in contradictory ways. On one hand, the existential threat has created genuine pressure for reform, as Ukraine's survival depends on maintaining Western support that is explicitly conditioned on anti-corruption progress. On the other hand, the emergency conditions of wartime have provided cover for corrupt actors, who can exploit the fog of war, the urgency of procurement, and the difficulty of oversight in conflict conditions. The result is a system where corruption has not disappeared but has adapted to new circumstances—a reality that the Operation Midas revelations have now exposed with devastating clarity.

Anatomy of Theft: The Operation Midas Revelations

On November 10, 2025, the National Anti-Corruption Bureau of Ukraine (NABU) and the Special Anti-Corruption Prosecutor's Office announced Operation Midas, a fifteen-month investigation culminating in simultaneous raids against seventy targets across the country. The scale of the investigative effort—over a thousand hours of wiretapped calls, the entire bureau staff working with single-minded focus—signaled the magnitude of what had been uncovered. What emerged was a corruption scheme of stunning breadth and brazenness, targeting the very infrastructure that Russia had been systematically destroying. The alleged architect of the scheme was Tymur Mindich, a businessman with exceptionally close ties to President Zelenskyy. Mindich co-owned Kvartal 95, Zelenskyy's former film production company, and had served as a political fixer for years. His involvement immediately elevated the scandal from a routine corruption case to a potential crisis for the presidency itself. Also implicated was Oleksiy Chernyshov, a former Deputy Prime Minister and another Zelenskyy ally, along with Herman Halushchenko, the serving Justice Minister who had previously held the Energy Minister portfolio. The mechanics of the scheme revealed a sophisticated operation that exploited Ukraine's desperate need to repair and protect its energy infrastructure. According to NABU, the conspirators used their influence to artificially inflate prices for infrastructure contracts, then coerced companies into paying these inflated rates under threat of losing their operating licenses. The Ministry of Energy allegedly assisted in this coercion, turning a government institution meant to serve the public into an instrument of extortion. The total embezzlement is estimated at roughly one hundred million U.S. dollars, though this figure may rise as investigations continue. The details that have emerged paint a picture of corruption operating at almost farcical levels of obviousness. Wiretap transcripts captured one accused individual complaining about back pain from carrying heavy bags of cash around Kyiv. Another suggested it would be a "waste of money" to invest in protecting electrical substations near nuclear power stations—a statement that reveals not only the theft itself but the callous disregard for public safety that accompanied it. Investigators discovered a golden toilet bowl in an apartment belonging to Mindich, a symbol of ostentatious wealth accumulated while ordinary Ukrainians faced blackouts and the threat of freezing in their homes. The context makes the crime particularly egregious. Throughout Russia's invasion, Moscow has systematically targeted Ukrainian energy infrastructure, especially as winter approaches. The country has endured long, frequent blackouts resulting from missile and drone attacks. Supporting Ukraine's energy sector has been a key priority for foreign backers, with substantial sums flowing into the country specifically to ensure that Ukrainians would not freeze to death. The money was meant to pay for reinstallation and repair of power lines, rebuilding of destroyed transfer stations, funding of air defense systems, and purchase of drones and interceptors to minimize threats to infrastructure. Instead, it lined the pockets of Mindich and his co-conspirators. The investigation also revealed that the conspirators had become aware they were under surveillance. In July, around the time the Zelenskyy government had moved to strip NABU of its independence, the accused began following investigators and monitoring them through CCTV feeds that were supposed to be secure. This surveillance of the surveillants suggests either a leak within law enforcement or sophisticated intelligence capabilities on the part of the corrupt network—neither possibility offering much comfort. Most damningly, Mindich managed to flee the country just one day before the raids were announced, first to Poland and then to Israel, indicating he had received advance warning from someone with access to operational details.

The International Dimension: Aid, Accountability, and Geopolitical Stakes

The Operation Midas scandal has detonated at precisely the moment when Ukraine's relationship with its Western backers faces maximum strain. The massive flow of international assistance—financial, military, and humanitarian—that has sustained Ukraine's war effort has always carried an implicit bargain: in exchange for unprecedented support, Ukraine would demonstrate progress toward the governance standards expected of a prospective EU and NATO member. The revelation that tens of millions of euros meant for energy infrastructure were instead stolen by individuals close to the president threatens to shatter this bargain. For skeptics of Ukraine aid in Western capitals, the scandal provides powerful ammunition. These critics, who have long questioned whether Ukraine can be trusted with taxpayer money, now have concrete evidence that their concerns were justified. The fact that the corruption targeted energy infrastructure—a sector that has received substantial dedicated funding from European and American sources—makes the betrayal particularly acute. Policymakers who have defended Ukraine aid packages to skeptical constituents must now explain how such massive theft could occur under their watch. The political implications extend beyond immediate aid decisions. In the United States and across Europe, support for Ukraine has become increasingly polarized along partisan lines. The corruption scandal provides fodder for those who argue that resources would be better spent domestically, that Ukraine is a "bottomless pit" for Western money, or that the conflict should be resolved through territorial concessions to Russia. Even among Ukraine's genuine supporters, the scandal creates difficult questions about oversight mechanisms, accountability structures, and whether current aid delivery methods are sustainable. The Kremlin, predictably, has seized on the revelations for propaganda purposes. Russian state media and officials have long portrayed Ukraine as irredeemably corrupt, arguing that Western support merely enriches a kleptocratic elite while ordinary Ukrainians suffer. The Operation Midas scandal provides Moscow with a ready-made narrative that resonates with existing doubts in Western publics. This propaganda value extends beyond immediate aid questions to broader geopolitical positioning: if Ukraine is too corrupt for EU membership, Russia can argue, then the country naturally belongs within a Russian sphere of influence rather than a Western one. Yet the international response has also revealed the complexity of the situation. Many Western officials and analysts have acknowledged that two truths can coexist: Ukraine faces a serious corruption problem that must be addressed, and Ukraine's defense against Russian aggression remains a legitimate cause worthy of support. This nuanced position recognizes that corruption, while serious, does not invalidate Ukraine's right to sovereignty or the strategic importance of preventing Russian territorial expansion. The challenge lies in maintaining this nuance in political environments that increasingly reward simplistic narratives over complex realities. The scandal has also highlighted the unintended consequences of massive aid flows in conflict conditions. The sheer volume of money entering Ukraine—for military equipment, infrastructure repair, humanitarian assistance, and budget support—creates opportunities for corruption that would not exist in peacetime. Emergency procurement procedures, relaxed oversight in conflict zones, and the difficulty of auditing expenditures in areas near active combat all contribute to an environment where corrupt actors can operate with reduced risk of detection. This is not an argument against providing aid, but it does underscore the need for more robust accountability mechanisms that can function even under wartime pressures.

Battlefield Consequences: Morale, Desertion, and Strategic Vulnerability

The corruption scandal's most immediate and potentially catastrophic impact may be on Ukraine's military effectiveness and the morale of soldiers fighting on the front lines. Ukrainian forces have endured nearly four years of brutal combat, facing a numerically superior adversary with greater resources and strategic depth. They have done so with remarkable resilience, but that resilience has always depended on a belief that their sacrifice serves a purpose—that they are defending a Ukraine worth preserving, a nation that will honor their service and use its resources to support their mission. The revelation that members of Zelenskyy's inner circle were stealing money meant for energy infrastructure—money that could have funded better equipment, improved logistics, or enhanced force protection—strikes directly at this belief. Soldiers enduring harsh conditions in trenches, facing artillery barrages and drone attacks, must now confront the knowledge that their leaders were enriching themselves while ordinary Ukrainians faced blackouts and the threat of freezing. The psychological impact of this betrayal cannot be overstated. Morale on the front lines was already low, particularly with another winter approaching and no clear end to the conflict in sight. The corruption scandal has added a new dimension of disillusionment. Ukraine is already experiencing a desertion crisis, with soldiers leaving their posts at rates that alarm military commanders. Multiple factors contribute to this problem: exhaustion from prolonged combat, inadequate rotation schedules, concerns about families at home, and doubts about the strategic direction of the war. The corruption scandal exacerbates all of these factors by raising a fundamental question: what are they fighting for? If Ukraine's leaders are using the war as an opportunity for personal enrichment, if the sacrifices of soldiers are being exploited rather than honored, then the moral foundation of the war effort begins to crumble. The operational consequences of declining morale and increasing desertion are severe. Ukraine's military strategy depends on maintaining defensive positions along an extended front line while conducting limited offensive operations to reclaim territory or disrupt Russian logistics. This requires not just equipment and ammunition but motivated, disciplined soldiers willing to hold positions under fire. As desertion rates rise, units become undermanned, defensive lines weaken, and the risk of breakthrough increases. Russia has been placing immense pressure on strategic locations like Pokrovsk, and any significant degradation in Ukrainian defensive capabilities could lead to territorial losses that cascade into broader strategic setbacks. The scandal also affects military procurement and logistics, areas already vulnerable to corruption even in peacetime. The investigation revealed that a second inquiry is underway into inflated military contracts, with raids on the defense ministry expected or already conducted. If corruption has infiltrated military procurement—if contracts for weapons, ammunition, vehicles, or other essential supplies have been inflated or manipulated—then Ukraine's combat effectiveness has been directly compromised. Soldiers may be fighting with inferior equipment, inadequate supplies, or shortages that could have been avoided if resources had been properly allocated. Beyond immediate battlefield impacts, the scandal affects Ukraine's ability to sustain its war effort over time. Modern warfare requires not just frontline combat troops but an entire ecosystem of support: logistics networks, maintenance facilities, training programs, medical services, and civil defense infrastructure. All of these depend on functioning institutions and adequate funding. If corruption has hollowed out these supporting structures—if money meant for logistics has been stolen, if contracts for maintenance have been inflated, if training programs exist only on paper—then Ukraine's military capacity will degrade even if front-line units remain intact. The war has already stretched Ukraine's resources to their limits; corruption ensures that these limited resources are used inefficiently, multiplying the strain.

Reform Under Fire: NABU, Civil Society, and the Politics of Anti-Corruption

The Operation Midas investigation represents both the promise and the peril of Ukraine's anti-corruption efforts. The National Anti-Corruption Bureau of Ukraine, established in 2015 as part of reforms following the Euromaidan revolution, was designed to be an independent body capable of investigating high-level corruption without political interference. The fact that NABU successfully conducted a fifteen-month investigation into individuals close to the president, culminating in coordinated raids across the country, demonstrates that Ukraine has built institutions with real investigative capacity and at least some degree of independence. Yet the context surrounding the investigation reveals how fragile these institutions remain. Just months before announcing Operation Midas, NABU itself had been targeted by the Zelenskyy government and parliament in a concerted effort to strip it of its independence. The official justification cited concerns that Russia had gained influence within the bureau—a claim that conveniently emerged as NABU was investigating corruption in Zelenskyy's circle. These efforts to undermine NABU only failed because of mass public protests, a movement that brought Ukrainian corruption to the forefront of public consciousness in a way it had not been since the war's outbreak. This dynamic illustrates a recurring pattern in Ukraine's anti-corruption efforts: progress occurs not through smooth institutional development but through cycles of crisis, public pressure, and grudging elite accommodation. Civil society organizations, investigative journalists, and ordinary citizens have repeatedly forced accountability when political leaders would prefer to avoid it. The protests that saved NABU's independence demonstrated that Ukrainian civil society retains the capacity to mobilize against corruption even during wartime—a remarkable achievement given the many other pressures facing the population. President Zelenskyy's response to the scandal has been carefully calibrated but ultimately ambiguous. He publicly voiced support for the investigation, stating that "any effective action against corruption is very necessary" and that "everyone who built the schemes must receive a clear procedural answer." He accepted the resignations of Justice Minister Herman Halushchenko and Energy Minister Svitlana Hrynchuk, and promised audits of state-owned energy companies with plans to replace their leadership. These actions signal awareness that the scandal poses a serious threat and that some response is necessary. Yet significant questions remain about the depth of Zelenskyy's commitment to accountability. The alleged ringleader, Tymur Mindich, managed to flee the country just one day before the raids, suggesting he received advance warning from someone with access to operational details. Several other implicated individuals appeared to take protective actions immediately before being raided. These facts point to leaks within the government or law enforcement, raising questions about whether elements of the state apparatus are working to protect corrupt actors rather than expose them. Zelenskyy himself has not been directly implicated in the investigations, and it remains unclear whether he will become a serious subject of interest. This creates a difficult political situation: either he was aware of the corruption occurring within his inner circle, making him complicit, or he was unaware, making him appear incompetent and controlled by corrupt advisors. Neither option is politically attractive, and both undermine his authority at a critical moment. Other political actors within Ukraine have urged Zelenskyy to take more decisive action, to purge anyone with even a hint of corruption from his administration, but such a purge would necessarily implicate many of his closest allies and could destabilize his government. The scandal has also revealed the limitations of reform efforts that focus on institutional design while leaving underlying power structures intact. Ukraine has created anti-corruption agencies, passed anti-corruption legislation, and implemented various transparency measures. These reforms are real and have produced results, as Operation Midas demonstrates. Yet they have not fundamentally altered the oligarchic power structure that enables corruption to flourish. As long as vast wealth remains concentrated in the hands of a few individuals with the means to influence politics, media, and law enforcement, corruption will find ways to persist regardless of institutional safeguards.

Existential Crossroads: Scenarios for Ukraine's Political Future

The corruption scandal arrives at a moment when Ukraine faces a convergence of crises that could determine not just the outcome of the current conflict but the country's long-term trajectory. The immediate challenge is preventing the scandal from triggering a political collapse that would accomplish what Russian military force has failed to achieve. This requires managing multiple simultaneous threats: restoring public confidence in government, reassuring international backers that aid will be properly used, maintaining military morale and combat effectiveness, and actually rooting out the corruption that has been exposed. The domestic political situation is particularly precarious. If the scandal continues to metastasize, implicating more officials and revealing additional schemes, it could bring down the Zelenskyy government entirely. While Zelenskyy's leadership has had its critics, a government collapse during wartime carries enormous risks. Even well-intentioned political change in such sensitive circumstances can produce massive unintended consequences. A new administration might overestimate its ability to shift strategy, appoint generals who miscalculate what changes can be made on the ground, or attempt to reach a ceasefire by scaling down the war effort in ways that invite Russian advances. The scenario of political instability is particularly dangerous given Ukraine's current military position. Russian forces continue to apply pressure along multiple points of the front line, with particular focus on strategic locations like Pokrovsk. Ukraine's defensive posture depends on maintaining cohesive command structures, reliable logistics, and adequate troop strength. Political chaos in Kyiv could disrupt all of these elements simultaneously, creating opportunities for Russian breakthroughs that could rapidly alter the strategic balance. The combination of declining morale, increasing desertion, potential reductions in Western military aid, and political instability in the capital could create a cascading failure that overwhelms Ukraine's defensive capabilities. Yet there are also scenarios in which Ukraine emerges from this crisis stronger, though the path to such outcomes is narrow and difficult. If Zelenskyy and his government can demonstrate genuine commitment to accountability—if those responsible for corruption are actually prosecuted and punished, if stolen funds are recovered, if systemic reforms are implemented—then the scandal could become a turning point rather than a death knell. This would require political courage that goes beyond accepting ministerial resignations or promising audits. It would require dismantling patronage networks, breaking oligarchic power, and accepting that some of Zelenskyy's closest allies may face serious consequences. The international dimension will be crucial in determining which scenario unfolds. If Western backers respond to the scandal by dramatically reducing aid, Ukraine's position will deteriorate rapidly. If they instead use the scandal as leverage to demand and support deeper reforms—conditioning continued aid on specific anti-corruption measures while maintaining support levels—then Ukraine might navigate through the crisis. This approach would require Western governments to maintain a nuanced position: acknowledging the seriousness of corruption while recognizing that Ukraine's defense remains strategically important, and that corruption, while unacceptable, does not invalidate the country's right to sovereignty or the importance of preventing Russian territorial expansion. The longer-term implications extend to Ukraine's post-war future, whenever that may arrive. The country will eventually face massive reconstruction needs, requiring hundreds of billions of dollars in investment. If corruption remains entrenched, international investors and donors will be reluctant to commit resources, fearing they will be stolen or misallocated. This could trap Ukraine in a cycle where war damage cannot be repaired, economic recovery cannot occur, and the country remains vulnerable to future Russian pressure. Conversely, if Ukraine uses this moment to genuinely transform its governance, it could emerge from the war as a more functional state better positioned for European integration and long-term stability. The scandal also affects Ukraine's geopolitical alignment and its prospects for joining Western institutions. EU membership requires meeting specific governance standards, including effective anti-corruption measures. NATO membership, while primarily focused on security criteria, also considers political stability and democratic governance. If Ukraine cannot demonstrate progress on corruption, its path to both organizations becomes more difficult, potentially leaving it in a geopolitical gray zone that invites future Russian interference. The stakes, therefore, extend far beyond the immediate scandal to encompass Ukraine's fundamental orientation and its place in the European security architecture. As Ukraine heads into another winter of war, with Russian missiles targeting its infrastructure and its soldiers holding defensive positions along an extended front line, the corruption scandal represents a test of the nation's resilience that is different from but no less important than the military test it has been enduring. The country has proven it can withstand Russian military pressure; now it must prove it can confront the internal rot that threatens to undermine everything its soldiers have fought to defend. The coming months will reveal whether Ukraine's leaders possess the political will to meet this challenge, whether its institutions have the strength to enforce accountability, and whether its international partners will provide the support and pressure necessary to enable genuine reform. The outcome will shape not just Ukraine's immediate prospects in the war but its long-term viability as an independent, functional state. For a nation that has defied expectations by surviving four years of Russian assault, the greatest threat may now come not from Moscow but from within.

Related Coverage

FAQ

What was Operation Midas and who were the main suspects?

Operation Midas was a 15‑month anti‑corruption investigation launched by Ukraine’s National Anti‑Corruption Bureau (NABU) and the Special Anti‑Corruption Prosecutor’s Office. It targeted seventy sites and uncovered a scheme led by businessman Tymur Mindich, involving former Deputy Prime Minister Oleksiy Chernyshov, Justice Minister Herman Halushchenko, Energy Minister Svitlana Hrynchuk, and other officials tied to the president’s inner circle.

How much money was allegedly siphoned from Ukraine’s energy sector in the Operation Midas investigation?

Investigators estimate that the embezzlement scheme diverted roughly one hundred million U.S. dollars from Ukraine’s state‑owned energy companies, with the amount potentially rising as the probe continues.

Why is the corruption scandal a threat to Ukraine’s war effort?

The scandal siphoned funds that were earmarked for repairing damaged power lines, rebuilding transfer stations, and purchasing air‑defense equipment, thereby weakening Ukraine’s ability to protect civilians and sustain front‑line operations during the harsh winter.

How might the scandal affect future aid from the United States and European allies?

Western donors now question the integrity of Ukraine’s financial management, risking reductions or conditions on future aid, as the scandal undermines confidence that donated funds are used for defense and reconstruction.

What steps has President Zelenskyy taken in response to the Operation Midas findings?

Zelenskyy publicly condemned the corruption, ordered resignations of Energy Minister Svitlana Hrynchuk and Justice Minister Herman Halushchenko, pledged audits of state‑owned energy firms, and vowed to replace leadership to restore trust.

Sources

About the Author

Jackson Reed

Jackson Reed creates and presents analysis focused on military doctrine, strategic competition, and conflict dynamics.

About the Team →