Grant Ecosystem or Reforms? What the Armada Network Report Revealed About the Ukrainian Legal Profession

While in Kyiv we have grown accustomed to treating any piece of paper issued by non-governmental organizations (NGOs) as the ultimate truth, an event took place in the European Parliament the week before last that in Ukraine went almost unnoticed. And that is a mistake, because it may well become a cold shower for our “professional reformers.”

On February 5, the European Parliament hosted the presentation of a report by the American network Armada Network on the state of the Ukrainian legal profession during the war. Without exaggeration, it is a harsh audit of how our justice sector functions and, most interestingly, who influences it.

The report (which, incidentally, was presented by former U.S. Congressman Gregg Harper) contains a scathing critique, running like a red thread throughout the text, of the so-called “shadow reports.” These are the very documents that our grant-funded activists deliver to Brussels in bulk, demanding sanctions, dismissals, and re-certifications.

And it turns out that the authors of these “shadow” studies often do not even seek comments from those they assess (in this case, from the National Bar Association of Ukraine). In other words, they diagnose the patient based on a photograph. In the civilized world, this is not called analytics but commissioned work — a point stated openly by international experts.

Chris Holzen (a professional with 20 years of experience working in Ukraine) speaks plainly about the existence of a “grant ecosystem.” In other words, NGOs invent a crisis themselves, write a frightening report about it, receive a grant to combat the crisis, then write a new report arguing that even more funding is needed. It is a closed loop in which the result (that is, reform) is of no real interest to anyone, because achieving it would halt the flow of money.

It was also clearly emphasized during the presentation that “shadow reports” are attempting to substitute themselves for official state policy. Activists, without any responsibility or mandate, seek to dictate terms to a professional community which, incidentally, numbers 70,000 legal practitioners.

And do you know what the main message from European and American experts was? It is time to stop treating the perspective of a narrow group of grant recipients as the position of the entire Ukrainian society.

It appears that in Brussels — and not only there — people are finally beginning to understand that real institutional capacity (such as the work of the National Bar Association of Ukraine during the war) carries more weight than polished presentations.

I recommend reading the Armada report. It contains much of interest about how to distinguish genuine European integration from the imitation of vigorous activity.