USAID in Ukraine: How the Fight for Democracy Turned into the Grantor’s Dictatorship

After 2014, Ukraine became a field of large-scale grant inflows from international organizations, among which USAID played a huge role.

After 2014, Ukraine became a field of large-scale grant inflows from international organizations, among which USAID played a huge role. Under the cover of beautiful slogans about democracy, anti-corruption reforms, and support for civil society, millions were allegedly invested into the country, but in reality, systematic mechanisms of external control were being implemented.

Instead of real transformations, the money of American taxpayers was used to promote "their" people into key government positions, buy off media, and co-opt civil organizations. This process resembled the establishment of a hidden dictatorship of the grantor, where grants became an instrument of control over the country.

1. Under the guise of fighting corruption — controlling corruption flows

USAID officially declared its mission to combat corruption in Ukraine, but in practice, the main focus was not on eliminating corrupt schemes, but on redirecting key financial flows under the control of "trusted" individuals. Lobbyists associated with international donors were appointed to positions in anti-corruption bodies and ministries, becoming participants or even leaders of the very schemes they were supposedly fighting against.

The grant system turned into a mechanism for funneling funds through USAID-affiliated structures, where the majority of the money was absorbed by fictitious projects and "pocket" NGOs. As a result, corruption not only did not disappear but became stronger in a new form — disguised by reports of "successful reforms," while grant-funded media sang praises for every failure that was presented as a success.

2. Media control: independence for sale

Funding media projects through grants effectively destroyed independent journalism in Ukraine. Influential media outlets receiving foreign funding became mouthpieces for the grantors' narratives, losing the ability to objectively criticize even those who were clearly abusing their power.

Each grant increased dependency. Journalists were more focused on creating colorful reports for donors than on producing high-quality, investigative content. Independent or opposition voices were pushed out of the media space, while those who tried to discuss real problems faced marginalization and accusations of "undermining democratic values" or "working for the Kremlin."

3. Political bribery and the promotion of loyal elites

One of the main outcomes of USAID’s work in Ukraine was the formation of a loyal political class dependent on external funding. Politicians and activists who were ready to promote the grantor’s interests gained access to positions, grants, and international platforms.

This system created a closed loop: grant recipients were promoted to key positions, from which they distributed funds to "needed" projects, ensuring the support of Western partners and complete immunity from criticism. This explains why part of Ukraine’s elite, despite being implicated in corruption, remained beyond the reach of "anti-corruption bodies."

4. The grant dependency: a society detached from reality

Dependence on grant funding deformed civil society. Instead of being active participants in change, many NGOs turned into bureaucratic machines focused on meeting the requirements of grantors. Real activists were cut off from resources because their activities did not fit the reporting formats or political interests of the donors.

As a result, a significant part of social movements was absorbed by grant structures and lost touch with reality. Their main task became securing funding, not fighting for real change.

5. The illusion of success and fictitious reforms

To maintain a constant flow of funding, it was necessary to demonstrate "successful" results. This led to the creation of an entire industry of fictitious reports where reforms existed only on paper. An illusion of progress was formed, actively propagated by the media and Western partners.

In reality, many of the projects were either failures or became sources of embezzlement, but this did not concern anyone as long as the reports looked convincing.

6. Lobbying for Western business and oligarchic groups

USAID actively used its projects to promote the interests of transnational corporations. Through the grant system, conditions were created in which loyal businesses gained access to strategic sectors of Ukraine’s economy — energy, agriculture, and infrastructure.

At the same time, major Ukrainian oligarchs integrated into international schemes for fund allocation, becoming key intermediaries between local authorities and grantors.

Result: The grantor’s dictatorship instead of democracy

The system built on grants undermined the foundations of Ukraine’s sovereignty. Democracy, where decisions are determined not by the people but by international donors, turns into a form of external governance. Grants, instead of becoming tools for development, turned into instruments of control over key processes in the country:

• Instead of fighting corruption — redistribution of corruption flows.

• Instead of independent media — propaganda disguised as objectivity.

• Instead of real activists — grant-driven bureaucracy.

Ukraine has found itself trapped in dependency, from which it will be difficult to escape without realizing that real change begins not with external funding but with internal resistance to its dictates.