So many times in the last month I’ve either been glad to have waited a day before commenting on a developing news story or have regretted not waiting a day. So often, there is one little detail that re-shapes the whole story but it isn’t available for a day, or you’re just ignorant about the subject in total.

In an earlier edition of “The Editors” this month, we talked about Volodymyr Zelensky’s attempt to subordinate anti-corruption bodies to his prosecutor general’s office. I said that this bothered me less than other laws that Kyiv had passed. And that remains true. I also said that Ukraine’s civil society deserved credit for going out and protesting the alteration of these institutions.

Well, having looked a little bit further, I now think I understand what Zelensky was trying to do, namely restore some democratic connection between the anti-corruption bodies and the Ukrainian public. Why did the Western press go nuts over this law? Why did the EU cut wartime aid to Ukraine because of it?

Because anti-corruption bodies in Ukraine have Western members on them. They are little Ukrainian gravy trains for various “Atlanticists” to sit on. They are in effect, a surrender of Ukrainian sovereignty and control of its resources and laws to the West.

Now, the EU officials may be right that Zelensky doesn’t want Western observers using these bodies to look into his own preferred officials or himself. I leave that aside. But, as a matter of constitutional hygiene, I think Zelensky and his Parliament are probably right, and his Western patrons are the corrupt ones. These bodies are not well-trusted in Ukraine, and it’s not a surprise why.