The recordings published by Ahmetaj about Ron Yeffet and Rama / Ornela Çuçi: If the audio is confirmed to be authentic, SPAK should investigate the no-bid…

Ornela Çuçi, former deputy minister of tourism

The discussion about corruption in Ukraine has long been a recurring topic in the geopolitical forums and conversations I attend. The focus is particularly on the administration of foreign funds, procurement, the reconstruction process and the billions that the international community is making available to a country that, alongside winning the war, must demonstrate to its allies that their money is being managed according to the rules and under supervision.

This is not an issue raised only by Ukraine’s opponents. Its partners themselves have placed it at the center of attention. According to the World Bank, more than $90 billion in financial support has been mobilized for Ukraine since the start of the Russian invasion. The financing schemes are also linked to improving governance, combating corruption, procurement procedures and public finance management. Meanwhile, the European Union considers strengthening anti-corruption institutions an important element of integration and donor confidence.

Against this backdrop, Ukraine is under close scrutiny, which is why Ron’s mention in part of the recordings carries weight. The problem of corruption there is real. In its 2025 Corruption Perceptions Index, Transparency International ranks Ukraine 104th among 182 countries, with a score of 36 out of 100. Albania has a score of 39 and ranks 91st. This means that perceptions of corruption are more negative in Ukraine than in Albania.

Another circumstance must also be taken into account: Ukraine is at war. Since 2022, it has operated under martial law, has occupied territories, cities hit by bombardments and extraordinary military needs. If there is a situation in which urgency could be used as a justification for easing procedures, it is precisely Ukraine.

Nevertheless, the published excerpt from the recording has shaken me more than the names mentioned in it. The conversation says that the Ukrainians are asking for a tender and that they cannot act otherwise because they are “in NATO’s sights.” It is difficult not to see the absurdity of this situation in relation to us. A country at war, under martial law, performing worse than Albania in the corruption perceptions index and relying to an extraordinary extent on international financial and military assistance understands that it is being monitored and that the procedure must be justified.

Albania, by contrast, is at peace, has been a NATO member since 2009, is negotiating membership in the European Union and routinely uses rhetoric about the rule of law, European standards and strong institutions. In fact, in Transparency International’s ranking, it performs somewhat better than Ukraine. Despite this, the conversation presents Albania as the place where one can act without a tender.

That is precisely where, in my view, the issue that concerns us begins, and it is no longer simply the story of Ron Yeffet. It does not matter much what he thinks of Albanians, although it is painful to hear someone who has benefited from this country perceiving us in that way. The question is who and what convinced him that the Albanian state operates this way. With whom did he negotiate? What did he see? What was offered to him? Who gave him the confidence to speak of Albania as the place where what the Ukrainians cannot do because they are “in NATO’s sights” can be resolved?

In my view, this represents another level of corruption. The envelope passed under the table is merely its most common form. The real institutional breakdown occurs when the absence of rules becomes part of the state’s offer; when the businessperson seeking to work with the state sees a connection with the main decision-maker as more important than the procedure; when the phrase “in Albania, we do it this way” is understood without any need for explanation.

It is not enough to say that this concerns the defense industry. It is clear that defense and security may involve special procedures, confidentiality and exceptions established by law. For reasons of national security, some information cannot and should not be made public. But a special procedure is not the absence of a procedure, just as confidentiality does not rule out oversight. A state secret cannot be a secret from the state itself. On the contrary, the more strategic a sector is, the more rigorous institutional oversight must be. When weapons, ammunition, military technology, foreign companies, state assets and public money are at stake, the public may not have the right to know every detail, but the state must know and oversee every detail.

For this reason, if the authenticity of the recording is confirmed, SPAK should determine what was carried out without a tender and what the legal basis was. It must be clarified who authorized the process, who negotiated on behalf of the state, how the companies were selected and who verified their owners and ultimate beneficiaries. It must also be established who examined their capital, experience and capabilities, how the Albanian state’s economic interest was calculated, whether alternatives existed, who signed and who supervised the entire procedure.

In a functioning state, such material should immediately trigger an institutional response. The ministries and institutions involved should present the documents, explain the steps taken and accept responsibility for their role. When administrative or political explanations are insufficient, justice must act. What should have begun yesterday was an immediate institutional process to establish responsibility: ministers answering for their actions, mandates being made available, institutions opening their documents, audits, investigations and a Parliament carrying out the duty for which it exists. Morally, this state has fallen a long time ago. It must now be seen whether what we are hearing shows that the collapse has also reached the institutions themselves.

The paradox is striking: the Ukrainians, although they are at war and under martial law, say that a tender is essential because they are “in NATO’s sights.” They are under NATO’s watch. We have been NATO since 2009. And yet someone appears to present Albania as the place where eyes can be closed.

Therefore, if the content of the recording is proven, it is not Ron Yeffet who diminishes Albania as a state. We must have the courage to admit that it may be us who taught them that they could treat the Albanian state in this way. We, the most absurd state of the new millennium.

Wait, where the hell do we live?