X Close

Draft evasion scandal could derail Ukraine’s war effort

How deep does the rot go? Credit: Getty

How deep does the rot go? Credit: Getty

October 25 2024 - 11:45am

The draft evasion scandal currently engulfing Ukrainian officialdom has far-reaching implications. It raises hard questions both about the country’s ability to sustain the war, and what it will look like after the conflict. For while the wealthy and well-connected can bribe or bully their way out of service, many ordinary youths are simply hiding or trying to escape abroad. Consequently, the methods being used to round them up are becoming increasingly harsh.

This week, Ukrainian Prosecutor General Andriy Kostin was forced to resign after accusations raised by the media, and then investigated by the Ukrainian intelligence service (SBU), that dozens of officials had evaded military service through fake medical certificates of disability. These were issued in return for bribes and one medical official was caught with around $450,000 in undeclared cash. This indicates serious official corruption, since those certificates certainly could not have been afforded on official salaries alone. As many as 64 members of medical commissions have been charged with falsification, and nine have already been convicted. More than 4,000 certificates of disability have been cancelled. In his address to the nation on the subject, Zelensky said that “it is not only prosecutors, by the way. There are hundreds of cases of obviously unjustified disability [certificates] among customs and tax officials, in the pension fund system, and in local administrations.”

In Russia, too, the mass evasion of military service through bribes to medical officials has been an open secret for decades. Poor conditions, official corruption, and horrifying levels of bullying (Dedovshchina) made joining the army bitterly unpopular among educated youth. An attempt at mass conscription in 2022 contributed to a sharp drop in public support for the war. Thereafter, the Russian government has largely dodged this problem by limiting conscription for active service, and omitting it altogether for the middle classes and inhabitants of the main cities.

Instead, Russia has relied with considerable success on volunteers from poorer and remote regions, who, like the conscripts on the front line, have been paid very high wages — in many cases, as much as five times the average wage in their localities. Russia also has far more manpower to draw upon: it is planning to increase its armed servicemen to 1.5 million by 2026, up from a million before the war, despite losing more than 100,000 soldiers in Ukraine.

Ukraine, however, is estimated to have lost around 80,000 soldiers and its population has declined by a quarter due to emigration to the West. Russia now has almost five times Ukraine’s population, so Kyiv therefore has to conscript every able-bodied man it can. Recruitment issues reflect wider problems of morale, with desertions from the Ukrainian military reported at above 50,000. To judge by reports from the front line, many of the new Ukrainian conscripts are poorly trained and unmotivated.

The corruption revealed by the latest scandal is being exploited by domestic political opponents of the Zelensky government, and will doubtless strengthen those forces in the West opposed to further aid for Ukraine. It is also of great potential importance for Ukraine’s postwar future. Bringing the country into the European Union will be a difficult process, and will meet fierce opposition from powerful European economic and political lobbies. Those factions will undoubtedly use corruption as an argument to block its accession.

Within Ukraine, as I found during a visit last year, elite corruption causes great anger among ordinary Ukrainians, and especially among veterans. When the soldiers come home from what they are likely to see as a lost war, and remembering their dead and disabled comrades, they are unlikely to take kindly to being ruled by the same corrupt elites, however “democratically elected”. There are ominous precedents for where this kind of feeling can lead.


Anatol Lieven is a former war correspondent and Director of the Eurasia Program at the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft in Washington DC.

lieven_anatol

China is threatening America in the AI race

Reports sugget Zhipu AI  has released a new model that can rival leading US systems. Credit: Getty

Reports sugget Zhipu AI has released a new model that can rival leading US systems. Credit: Getty

July 1 2026 - 10:18am

China is trying to catch up with America on artificial intelligence. The Wall Street Journal has reported that Zhipu AI — one of China’s six “AI tiger” LLMs — has released a new model that can rival leading US systems, including Anthropic’s Mythos, in cybersecurity tasks such as pinpointing security bugs. While this marks a milestone in China’s drive to catch up with Western AI capabilities, strong performance on a single benchmark does not mean it has taken the lead. Chinese models still lag behind their Western counterparts in broader capabilities, such as autonomous operation. Skepticism is therefore warranted before resorting to hysterical conclusions, but complacency about the geopolitical implications of China’s AI advances would be an even greater mistake.

On the infrastructure side, Chinese AI is still constrained by access to advanced chips, with American labs way ahead in computing capacity as well as investment. Analysis from earlier this year suggests that Chinese models are likely to be at least a few months behind those in the US. But they are still continuing to make progress, or that the geopolitical importance of AI will be decided only by whose LLM has ventured deeper into the technological frontier. The practical applications of AI, countries’ to capture foreign markets, and the application of AI into the real economy will matter just as much.

Here, China may hold an advantage. As with its dominance across many critical supply chains, Beijing may not need to produce the most advanced AI systems — only those that are affordable and widely deployable. In doing so, it could consolidate global influence by supplying functional, low-cost AI at scale.

Beijing seems to be pursuing exactly that path, developing an AI “open-source” strategy that offers affordable, widely available AI models for companies and individuals to use and modify as they wish. The production of the DeepSeek AI model, which matched the performance of Silicon Valley tools such as ChatGPT at a fraction of the cost for users, created goodwill among Chinese models with developers.

The four most popular models on OpenRouter, an AI hardware platform for developers, are now all Chinese. The goal for China is not only to win the frontier-model race, but to make its systems the default layer of AI adoption across industries and global markets. For most economies, the choice is increasingly between an affordable tool they can deploy now and a more robust one that may be out of reach.

And while the countries adopting Chinese models may be exposed to political pressure and cyber threats from Beijing, safer and more capable alternatives matter little if they are unaffordable. American AI companies are already under pressure to monetize products whose operating costs are rising. If Chinese open-source models become the cheap default for startups, universities, governments and businesses across the developing world, then America’s AI lead will be eroded from below.

Perhaps more concerning for America in the long run is how AI can give Chinese manufacturing even more strength, through the ongoing integration of AI as a general-purpose technology. China’s new Five-Year Plan mentioned AI more than 50 times and includes an “AI+” action plan aimed at spreading AI across the economy.

Beijing has been pioneering automation of its critical infrastructure for years, with promising recent results in increasing warplane production capacity. In that regard, China’s open-model strategy and manufacturing dominance will reinforce each other. Cheap, adaptable models accelerate deployment across the real economy while those deployments generate real-world data and use cases that can feed back into further model improvement.

The United States should not dismiss the importance of its lead in the AI race. That lead worries Beijing, not least because a more automated Chinese economy would also become more vulnerable to AI-generated cyber threats. But nor should Washington assume that China cannot catch up with American capabilities over time.

This AI competition represents part of a broader struggle over tech supply chains and geopolitical influence. Decisions over whether to adopt US or Chinese models could produce a more fragmented global reality, with different regions relying on different cloud providers, chips and security structures. The result will likely be a global economy which is divided into competing spheres, rather than one which produces a single winner.


Miquel Vila is a political and geopolitical risk consultant focusing on industrial strategy, critical infrastructure and global supply chains.

miquelvilam