“Procurement audit, accountability and control: what helps Ukraine avoid corruption in the defense sector.”, — write: www.pravda.com.ua
A well-designed and transparent defense budget is one of the most effective tools of civilian and democratic control over the armed forces. Despite the particular vulnerability to corruption, the budgetary process itself can become a powerful mechanism for preventing, detecting and fighting corruption — provided there are effective and controlled mechanisms of supervision and accountability.
One of the key principles of democratic civilian control is how governments and parliaments determine, allocate and control defense spending.
Advertising:
Balancing national needs and avoiding the “security dilemma” It is important to maintain a balance between national needs and avoiding a security dilemma. At least two aspects stand out here.
The first concerns the national socio-economic context. The classic “guns or butter” dilemma reflects a fundamental choice between military needs and the welfare of the population. Each government must carefully balance these priorities, because increasing funding to one sector inevitably limits another—unless productivity increases.
Increasing economic efficiency can reduce this tension, allowing the state to simultaneously support defense and development. For war-torn Ukraine, this balance is particularly complex — and it encompasses not only defense and economic recovery, but also large-scale post-war reconstruction.
The second aspect is related to regional and international stability. Excessive secrecy or non-transparent military spending can provoke the suspicions of neighboring states, increasing the so-called security dilemma — when one country, strengthening its own security, provokes similar actions by others, undermining collective stability. On the contrary, transparency in budgeting, procurement and defense modernization reduces mistrust, strengthens democratic legitimacy and increases regional trust.
At the stage of budget formation, transparency plays a decisive role. Open control over spending priorities eliminates suspicions of corruption or favoritism. When policymakers and lawmakers approve not only the total amount of defense spending but also its detailed distribution, they strengthen public trust and institutional integrity. A transparent defense budget is not just a financial document. It is a pillar of democratic stability and a safeguard against corruption.
Supervision, audit and anti-corruption accountability Civilian and democratic control of the military covers more than just troop movements or procurement. Its basis lies in the way the defense budget is planned, negotiated, executed and audited. The entire budget cycle — from planning to final analysis — is both a mirror and a test of the state’s integrity.
Parliamentary debates, committee work and independent audits form the basis of this control. The defense budget undergoes several levels of verification — by parliament, specialized defense and finance committees, state auditing institutions and independent public organizations.
Within a few months after the end of the budget year, the Cabinet of Ministers submits to the Verkhovna Rada a report on the execution of the budget and the state debt. The Parliament evaluates this report and decides whether to grant the Cabinet of Ministers “exemption from responsibility”. This is not a formality – it is a key anti-corruption filter that ensures compliance of expenditures with approved goals and laws.
After the implementation of the budget, it becomes clear what actually happened: which priorities were preserved and which were violated. Such an audit is critical for detecting corruption, misdirected spending, or unauthorized transfers. It measures the difference between plans and actual actions, between political promises and administrative reality. In this sense, each article of the defense budget is a traceable obligation of the state, protection against manipulation and extravagance.
Transparency, trust of donors and countering disinformation Transparency in defense financing is the most effective tool for preventing corruption. This also applies to foreign military aid: international partners must be sure that their contributions are being used as intended. Funds for the purchase of weapons, equipment and modernization must be traceable and understandable for taxpayers and partners. When the budget is open and accountable, propaganda loses its impact: corruption thrives in the dark and accountability in the light.
Spending transparency not only strengthens donor confidence, but also protects democratic governments from disinformation campaigns, especially Russian propaganda aimed at undermining confidence in Ukrainian governance and Western support.
Although operational security requires some confidentiality, financial secrecy cannot be a cover for corruption. Parliamentary committees and watchdogs exist precisely to treat sensitive expenditure confidentially while maintaining public integrity. Democracies defend themselves not only with weapons, but also with honest accounting and transparent governance.
A properly structured budget is a separate anti-corruption tool: too general hides abuses, too detailed confuses. The optimal level of structural transparency allows citizens and institutions to understand the movement of funds without revealing sensitive details. The clearer the financial flows, the less room for corruption.
Limitations, flexibility and the political nature of defense spending Some states set legislative limits on defense spending as a share of GDP or budget. This can prevent uncontrolled militarization or excessive autonomy of the armed forces. But this raises the classic question of defense economics: how much is enough? Hard limits may seem objective, but they often mask qualitative corruption risks: inflated contracts, off-budget costs, political capture of purchases. Real protection is in constant parliamentary control, operational reporting and mandatory audits.
In peacetime, the state spends what it can. In the military – what it must, even borrowing, to maintain independence. Unfortunately, the “fog of war” can hide corruption, because the costs are huge and fast. But even in extraordinary conditions, the fight against corruption cannot stop – it eats away at the defense from the inside. An army armed because of corruption is weaker than one that has received less but honestly purchased.
Every state budget, especially the defense budget, is a political and ethical act. It reflects not only financial capabilities, but also national values. The experience of Ukraine is a vivid example. Until 2014, the defense budget was rarely changed exceeded 1% of GDP, and Soviet stocks were sold off amid public indifference. The policy of prioritizing “oil before guns” corresponded to the doctrine of minimum sufficiency.
After 2014, against the backdrop of Russia’s aggression, Ukraine’s defense policy and spending changed dramatically. According to SIPRI’s “Trends in World Military Expenditure 2022”, Ukraine’s defense expenditures increased to $44 billion — 640% more than in 2021 — the largest annual increase in modern history. For such sums, every unaccounted hryvnia is not only a financial loss, but also a loss of security.
Money, integrity and the power of democracy An ancient maxim pecunia nervus belli — “money is the nerve of war” — remains relevant. But in a democracy, honest money is the nerve of victory. Corruption turns financial strength into strategic weakness. Regulation of defense spending under democratic control is not only an economic necessity, but a moral obligation. Civilian leaders must maintain control and prevent excessive autonomy or political influence from the armed forces.
By ensuring the transparent allocation and control of defense resources, governments support civilian supremacy, protect democratic institutions, and strengthen societal resilience.
The defense budget is much more than a list of military expenditures. It is a systemic anti-corruption mechanism, a transparency tool and an indicator of democratic maturity. A state that manages its defense resources honestly and responsibly not only has a stronger military, but also a stronger democracy. And this is the most reliable form of national security.
Andrzej Falkowski, lieutenant general, former deputy chief of the General Staff of the Armed Forces of Poland; member of the NAKO Advisory Commission
A column is a type of material that reflects exclusively the point of view of the author. It does not claim objectivity and comprehensive coverage of the topic in question. The point of view of the editors of “Economic Pravda” and “Ukrainian Pravda” may not coincide with the author’s point of view. The editors are not responsible for the reliability and interpretation of the given information and perform exclusively the role of a carrier.