On May 11–12, 2026, an interview with former press secretary of the President of Ukraine Yulia Mendel was released in the American media space by journalist Tucker Carlson, where the main participants in the political scandal were Mendel herself, the President of Ukraine Volodymyr Zelensky, the Russian dictator Putin, the Office of the President of Ukraine, and Ukrainian journalists, politicians, and experts who sharply reacted to what was said.
For Ukraine, this is not just another conflict around a former official.
For Israel, this story is also important. It shows how during a war, the words of former government representatives can turn into an independent front — informational, diplomatic, emotional, and very dangerous. Especially when such statements are made not in a neutral format, but on a platform where the Ukrainian position is often presented through doubt, Western fatigue, and the search for ‘culprits’ not in Moscow, but in Kyiv.
Mendel worked as Zelensky’s press secretary until the full-scale invasion of Russia. That is why her interview had such a strong effect: she spoke not as an outside observer, but as someone who was inside the presidential team for some time. The source material conveys in detail the key theses of the interview and the reaction of Ukrainian journalists, politicians, and experts.
What exactly did Mendel say and why was it perceived as a blow to Ukraine
At the beginning of the interview, Yulia Mendel stated that she was not trying to justify the Russian invasion, Putin, and the crimes of the Russian army. But immediately after that, she added a thought that became one of the most discussed: according to her, the war ‘is no longer black and white.’
Such a formulation in itself already sounds dangerous.
For a society that has experienced Bucha, Mariupol, missile strikes on residential buildings, occupation, deportations, and daily losses, the phrase that ‘everything is not so clear-cut’ is perceived not as intellectual complexity, but as a blurring of the aggressor’s responsibility. In the Ukrainian context, this is especially painful because similar constructions have been used by Russian propaganda for years.
Mendel then moved on to a direct attack on Zelensky. She effectively equated him with Putin, stating that the Ukrainian president is also ‘evil,’ only hidden. According to her version, on camera, Zelensky looks soft and safe, but in real politics, he turns into a tough leader who ‘destroys people.’
This was not just an emotional outburst.
Such words, spoken by a former presidential press secretary in the Western media space, instantly become material for quoting. They can be taken out of context, translated, spread through Telegram channels, inserted into Russian broadcasts, and presented as ‘an insider’s confession from Ukrainian authorities.’
Phrases about democracy and dictatorship
Mendel also claimed that during her work, Zelensky allegedly spoke about democracy and state governance in a harsh manner. Among the phrases attributed to him are ‘Ukraine is not ready for democracy’ and ‘dictatorship is order.’
These are very serious accusations.
They hit several points at once: the image of Zelensky as a military leader of a democratic country, the legitimacy of Ukrainian institutions, the trust of allies, and the internal discussion about freedoms during the war. At the same time, Mendel did not present public evidence of these words, which means that for journalistic and political assessment, an important caveat remains: it is about her claims, not an established fact.
But the scandal has already happened.
In the information war, it is often not proof that works, but impression. First, the phrase causes shock, then it begins to be discussed, then it becomes part of the general noise. Even if it is later refuted, the trace remains.
Paris, NATO, and Donbas: the most explosive claims of the interview
One of the central episodes of the interview is related to the meeting between Zelensky and Putin in Paris in December 2019. Mendel claimed that she was present near the process and that the Ukrainian president allegedly promised the Russian dictator in a personal conversation: Ukraine will not become a NATO member.
This thesis cannot be perceived as an ordinary detail from memories.
The NATO issue was one of Moscow’s main tools of pressure on Kyiv. Russia has been trying for years to present Ukraine’s aspiration for Euro-Atlantic integration as a ‘threat’ and a pretext for aggression. Therefore, any words about allegedly given promises become a gift for the Kremlin’s version of events.
Especially if they come from the mouth of someone who once officially represented the President of Ukraine to the press.
It is important to emphasize here: Mendel did not provide documents, recordings, or confirmations. She told her version. And a version spoken on such a platform and at such a moment works not as a memoir detail, but as a political signal.
Istanbul negotiations and the claim about Donbas
Even more resonance was caused by Mendel’s words about the negotiations in Istanbul in 2022. She stated that Zelensky was allegedly ready to give Donbas to Russia to end the war.
According to her, this information was told to her by people representing Ukraine at the negotiations. She described it as shocking news: as if the Ukrainian side was ready to agree to a territorial concession to stop the horror of the war.
But this is where the scandal moved into the most dangerous zone.
Donbas is not an abstract negotiation point. It is Ukrainian territory, people, cities, cemeteries, homes, ruined destinies, occupation, and a long-standing war that began back in 2014. Therefore, the claim of readiness to ‘give Donbas’ is inevitably perceived as a political bomb.
The Office of the President of Ukraine sharply rejected this version.
In the Ukrainian reaction, it was stated that Mendel did not participate in the negotiations, did not make state decisions, and was not involved in the negotiation process. They also questioned the reliability and adequacy of her statements.
Formally, it was a comment on a specific interview.
In essence, it was an attempt to stop the spread of a narrative that could be used against Ukraine on the international level. Because if the external audience hears only Mendel’s version, it may get a false impression: as if Kyiv was once ready for capitulation terms, and now just ‘changed its mind.’
Why this is especially sensitive for Israel
The Israeli audience understands well that the issue of territories, negotiations, and security is never simple. In Israel, they have known for decades the price of formulations that sound in diplomacy, the press, and behind-the-scenes negotiations.
One phrase can change the tone of the discussion.
One former official can give opponents of the state material for pressure.
One broadcast on a large platform can become part of a campaign that then lives its own life.
That is why the story with Mendel is important not only as a Ukrainian scandal. It shows how in wartime, personal grievances, political ambitions, media thirst for attention, and external interests can mix into one toxic plot.
Appeal to Putin and the role of Tucker Carlson
A separate blow to the perception of the interview was dealt by its finale. Mendel switched to Russian and addressed Putin directly.
She called herself an ordinary Ukrainian woman from Kherson. She said she does not represent NATO, the West, or Zelensky. She emphasized that she is not a political opponent of the Russian dictator and poses no threat to him. Then she urged him to stop the war with one decision.
The very appeal to Putin during the war already caused outrage.
But even more, many were hurt by the formula that in this conflict ‘Slavs are killing Slavs.’ For the Ukrainian audience, such a phrase sounds like a return to the old imperial trap: as if it is about a tragic quarrel of ‘brotherly peoples,’ and not about a war of an aggressor against an independent state.
Ukraine did not attack Russia.
Ukraine did not occupy Russian territories.
Ukraine did not destroy Russian cities, did not kidnap Russian children, did not launch missiles at Russian high-rises, and did not try to erase Russian identity.
Therefore, the formula ‘Slavs are killing Slavs’ looks not peace-making, but politically blurred. It diverts attention from the main thing: the responsibility for the war lies with Russia and its leadership.
Why Carlson is not a neutral platform
The scandal was intensified by the fact that the interview was released specifically with Tucker Carlson.
Carlson has long been perceived in Ukraine as a media figure who is critical of aid to Kyiv, gives space to anti-Ukrainian theses, and willingly talks with figures important for the Russian propaganda picture of the world. His interview with Putin became one of the most notable examples of how the Russian dictator got direct access to the Western audience.
Therefore, Mendel’s appearance with Carlson did not look like a random choice of platform.
It looked like an appeal to an audience where there is already a demand for theses about the ‘ambiguity’ of the war, fatigue from Ukraine, ‘mistakes of Zelensky,’ and the need for urgent peace at almost any cost.
For the international audience, this may look like a ‘bold confession of a former employee.’ For Ukrainians, it is like a stab in the back during the war.
NANews — Israel News | Nikk.Agency considers such stories not as ordinary media scandals, but as part of a large informational struggle around Ukraine, Israel, and the entire democratic world. In both cases, opponents bet not only on weapons but also on societal fatigue, internal conflicts, distrust of leaders, and the destruction of moral clarity.
Ukrainian reaction: from outrage to talks of treason
Ukrainian journalists, politicians, and experts reacted sharply. And it was expected.
Marina Danilyuk-Yermolayeva, a journalist, blogger, and editor-in-chief of the ‘Espreso’ website, wrote that Mendel’s interview showed how former representatives of Zelensky’s team can ‘betray’ each other. In her assessment, it looked like a moment when people from the former circle begin to bring internal conflicts outside, and not in a Ukrainian professional format, but through an American platform with a very specific audience.
She also harshly criticized the very way Mendel got into the presidential team. The essence of her reaction was simple: when people are chosen not for deep professional reputation, but for effectiveness, randomness, or public visibility, the state may later pay a reputational price for it.
Tatyana Troshchinskaya looked at the story more broadly.
She recalled Mendel’s book ‘Each of Us is a President,’ published in 2021, and a fragment where Maidan was described through ‘dirty tents,’ cold nights, the risk of being beaten, water cannons, gas, and revolutionary ‘romance.’ According to Troshchinskaya, such language showed not just a stylistic failure, but a deep alienation from the experience of people for whom Maidan was not ‘unhygienic romance,’ but a struggle for dignity and European choice.
In her reaction, there was an important thought: the interview with Carlson did not appear out of nowhere. It only highlighted what critics believe was noticeable in Mendel for a long time.
Iryna Gerashchenko: the profession requires restraint
People’s Deputy Iryna Gerashchenko, who previously worked as the press secretary of the third President of Ukraine Viktor Yushchenko, emphasized professional ethics.
She reminded that a press secretary or a person close to the president sees many closed processes. They can witness historical decisions, complex conversations, mistakes, conflicts, emotional moments. But that is why the profession requires not only access but maturity.
Not everything a person has seen needs to be made public.
Not everything that can be said should be said.
Not every personal disappointment justifies a public blow to the state during the war.
Gerashchenko emphasized that there are always many things left behind the scenes, and a person involved in state processes must understand the boundary between the right to an opinion and responsibility to the country.
This sounded especially strong because it was not about defending Zelensky as a politician. It was about the principle: former officials should not turn state processes into raw material for foreign political shows.
Lena Chichenina, Maria Popova, and the reaction of the professional environment
The editor-in-chief of the media tabloid ‘Antonina’ Lena Chichenina reacted sarcastically and emotionally. She was outraged by the theatricality of the interview: metaphors, acting delivery, dramatic comparisons of Zelensky with ‘teddy bear’ and ‘grizzly bear,’ as well as the overall tone in which the conversation about the war almost turned into a scene.
Maria Popova, a representative of the Ukrainian Defense Industry Council, focused on the issue of trust. She wrote that after such an interview, it is hard to imagine how Mendel could be trusted with work even with minimal access to confidential information.
This is no longer just an emotional assessment.
This is a question of security. During the war, information, connections, former access, and personal knowledge can become a sensitive resource. If a person uses a public platform for statements that potentially harm the country, the question arises: how reliable was the system of selection and trust?
Experts saw a dangerous signal for the external audience in the interview
Strategic communications expert Volodymyr Anfimov called the interview difficult to watch and at times disgusting. He was particularly struck by the fact that Mendel, already at the beginning of the conversation, presented Zelensky as one of the key obstacles to ending the war.
In his assessment, the most dangerous effect of the interview is the signal to the external audience: as if it is Ukraine, not Russia, that is hindering peace.
This is the central point.
Russian propaganda has been trying for years to convince the Western audience that the war can be ended quickly if Kyiv ‘becomes more realistic,’ gives up territories, stops demanding weapons, does not ‘stubbornly resist,’ and agrees to Moscow’s terms. When a similar meaning is voiced by a former press secretary of the Ukrainian president, it gains additional strength.
Anfimov also drew attention to the image of Ukraine that emerged from Mendel’s words. In her description, the country looked almost doomed: a frightened population, fear of speaking openly, the risk of ending up in prison or on the front line, lack of prospects, exhaustion, and internal degradation.
Such an image is dangerous.
It demoralizes its own and gives arguments to others.
For Israel, this logic is also familiar. When enemies cannot quickly break a country militarily, they try to convince the outside world that resistance is pointless, leadership is illegitimate, society is tired, and continuing the struggle is just a whim of politicians.
Yuriy Goncharenko and Yuriy Fizer: the question of state treason
The head of the research and analytical group InfoLight.UA Yuriy Goncharenko called Mendel’s actions direct state treason. He expressed the opinion that Ukrainian special services should evaluate her statements and bring the issue to court.
International journalist and TV presenter Yuriy Fizer also raised the question of a possible investigation. He emphasized that it is difficult to suspect him of sympathy for Zelensky, but after watching the interview, he had one main question: will the SBU open a case of state treason?
At the same time, Fizer made an important reservation. He admitted that part of Mendel’s words may contain elements of truth or reflect some real internal processes. But, in his opinion, even if this is so, the question remains: does a citizen of Ukraine have the moral right during the war to make such statements on an external platform that many perceive as hostile to Ukraine?
This is where the main line of conflict lies.
Not between supporters and opponents of Zelensky.
But between the right to criticize the government and the risk of playing into the enemy’s hands.
Tatyana Popova: ‘the mistake of the first appointments’
Journalist Tatyana Popova called Mendel an obvious mistake of the first appointments. She recalled meeting her in 2019 through the Council on Freedom of Speech at the Office of the President and wrote that she was shocked by her behavior.
According to Popova, she was not the only one shocked. Mendel already then regularly got into conflicts with journalists. Episodes with Christopher Miller, Zabelina, and other media representatives were remembered.
This reaction is important because it shifts the conversation from one interview to a systemic problem of the first personnel decisions of Zelensky’s team. In 2019, the new government came with the idea of renewal, openness, and ‘people from the people.’ But renewal without a professional filter sometimes leads to random or poorly prepared people gaining access to too serious processes.
And then their personal stories become a problem for the state.
Political background: Yermak, rumors, tension, and versions of coincidences
A separate layer of reaction is related to the general political background. The source material mentions that some commentators linked the release of the interview with other events around the former head of the Office of the President Andriy Yermak and the general nervousness of Ukrainian politics.
Former SBU speaker and journalist Stanislav Rechinsky suggested that the timing coincidence might not be accidental. His comment was built around an alarming scenario: pressure on Zelensky, possible attempts to force him to make decisions, talks about a peace agreement with the Russian Federation, the risk of internal upheavals.
Such versions remain assessments and assumptions.
But their appearance shows the level of tension. When a country is at war, any major informational attack is perceived not in isolation, but as a possible part of a broader combination. Especially if it simultaneously features themes of Zelensky, Yermak, negotiations, Donbas, Putin, the USA, and external pressure.
Natalia Fedorishin, founder of the Kyiv School of Political Technologies, compared the feeling from Mendel’s interview to the film ‘Bugonia’. According to her, different genres and scales can give the same effect: a collision with something chaotic, impulsive, and destructive, which is difficult to comprehend rationally.
This is a good description of the general mood after the interview.
People argued not only about the facts. They tried to understand what it was all about: personal revenge, a political signal, an attempt to return to the public eye, a conscious play for an external audience, or just a destructive media gesture.
Why this story is not just about Mendel’s personality
It’s tempting to say: this is just the story of a former press secretary who decided to loudly remind everyone of herself.
But it’s more complicated.
Mendel’s interview became a point where several major issues converged: personnel policy, trust in former officials, the secrecy of negotiation processes, the weakness of public communications, society’s fatigue from the war, Western discussions about aid to Ukraine, and the Russian information strategy.
That’s why the reaction was so intense.
Ukrainians argue not only about whether Mendel told the truth or lied. They argue about who has the right to speak on behalf of the country when the country is at war. About whether personal experience in power can be used as material for someone else’s show. About where freedom of speech ends and harm to national security begins.
For Israel, this logic is also perfectly understandable.
A country under constant external pressure knows that internal conflicts will always be used by opponents. This does not mean that the authorities cannot be criticized. On the contrary, criticism is necessary. But criticism and informational self-destruction are not the same thing.
The main conclusion: the interview became not a conversation about the past, but a blow to the present.
The story with Mendel’s interview is important not because it contained criticism of Zelensky. The Ukrainian president has been criticized for a long time and for various reasons: for personnel decisions, for the role of the President’s Office, for communications, for government mistakes, for complex relationships with political opponents.
The problem is not in the fact of criticism itself.
The problem is in how, where, and in what framework it was voiced.
When the former press secretary of the Ukrainian president goes to Tucker Carlson and talks about Zelensky as a hidden evil, about alleged promises to Putin, about readiness to give up Donbass, and about ‘Slavs killing Slavs’, it stops being an ordinary interview. It becomes an event of informational warfare.
For Russia, such words are convenient.
For Ukraine, they are painful.
For the Western audience, they can become another reason to doubt, to get tired, to distance themselves, and to say: ‘Maybe it’s really more complicated there?’
And for Israel, this story is a reminder that the war for international perception can sometimes be no less harsh than the war on the ground. Especially when the opponent knows how to wait, pick up someone else’s words, and turn them into evidence of their lies.
The scandal around Mendel will still develop. There may be new reactions, legal assessments, political comments, and additional explanations. But one thing is already clear: this interview became not just a conversation of a former press secretary with an American journalist.
It became a test of the maturity of society, the resilience of the state, and the ability to distinguish honest criticism from an informational blow at a time when the country continues to fight for its existence.