“We analyze why Operation Midas became a crisis of confidence and how miscommunication intensified the political blow.”, — write: www.pravda.com.ua
Chronological drama, or why this is a communication failure and not just a scandal The key element that compromised the effectiveness of the entire operation was the fact that Mindich escaped. The chronology of events on November 10, 2025 demonstrates a critical imbalance in the work of state structures: the businessman left Ukraine in the morning, just a few hours before the detectives of the Anti-Corruption Bureau came to search premises associated with him in Kyiv. Later that day NABU and SAP officially announced a large-scale operation to expose corruption.
The consequence of this time discrepancy was extremely devastating: the success of the anti-corruption authorities in a case that had been developed for 15 months and included 1,000 hours of wiretapping, was instantly leveled by their failure to secure the arrest of the main figure. This created a critical contradiction in public communication: the powerful operational report of NABU was opposed to the politically devastating fact of information leakage, which called into question the trust in the integrity of the entire anti-corruption vertical. The “Midas” case quickly turned from a demonstration of the effectiveness of NABU into a demonstration of the political protection of the elite.
Advertising:
Political crises always have two levels: factual and emotional. Facts can be checked, but emotions cannot be controlled. And it is they who now control public perception.
Ukrainians perceived this story not as “another corruption case”, but as betrayal: someone filled their own pockets, while others – soldiers, volunteers, mothers – gave their last for the sake of survival.Such stories touch on the most sacred – justice during the war. When you believe that survival is our common main value, and therefore everyone should contribute, help and contribute to the army in every way, if they are not already in its ranks.
Read also Maria Berlinska’s column: Brothels and churches for the president
War, blood and communication In the fourth year of the great war trust has become the only currencywhich Ukrainian society lives by. When it falls, everything falls: mobilization, volunteerism, faith in victory.
Therefore, the reaction of the authorities to such scandals should not be technical, but human. Not just “a working group has been created”, but “we understand how difficult and unfair this situation is during the war”, “we hear our people”, “we feel this pain”, “we are taking these steps to fix it and prevent something like this from happening”.
Vector 1: executive communication – strategic distancing President
Volodymyr Zelenskyi’s reaction to the scandal was expressed in his evening address on November 11. The tone of this communication was calibrated, formal and supportive of the institution. The President expressed his approval of the efforts of NABU, SAP, emphasizing the need for “effective actions against corruption” and “the inevitability of punishment.” He also urged officials to “work together with NABU, together with law enforcement agencies.”
Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine
The tone of the Cabinet of Ministers’ communication in Prime Minister Yulia Svyridenko’s statement was more decisive, more systematic and institutional. She focused on immediate management and preventive measures, announced sanctions, audits and personnel decisions. It sounded convincing.
State Border Service
One of the most controversial aspects of the Midas case was the explanation of why Mindić was able to leave the country freely a few hours before the raids. The communication of the border guards, published on November 12, had an official-procedural, defensive/justifying tone. The DPSU reported that Mindich’s departure on the morning of November 10 was legal: “All documents giving the right to cross the border during martial law were available.”
Vector 2: communication of anti-corruption institutions NABU and SAP
The communication was consistently decisive, professional and officially revealing. On November 10 and 11, the authorities announced the exposure of a “high-level criminal organization” headed by a “media-famous businessman” and detailed that the group demanded kickbacks of 10-15% of the value of Energoatom contracts. They emphasized the scale of the investigation (15 months, 1,000 hours of listening). This communication was necessary to maintain the reputation and demonstrated the ability of the anti-corruption vertical to reach the highest echelons of power.
Despite the show of strength through Operation Midas, the SAP was forced to admit internal vulnerability. On the same day, November 10, when Mindich fled, the SAP announced the initiation of an official investigation into a possible data leak.
National Agency for the Prevention of Corruption
The agency reacted proactively in order not to become a “collateral victim” of the scandal, as it was mentioned in the audio recordings made public by NABU.
On November 12, NAKC announced the launch of an internal audit initiated on November 10 and sent an official request to NABU regarding the details of the mentioned materials. The tone was proactive, aimed at ensuring transparency.
Vector 3: Communication of opinion leaders and the opposition Chairman of the Board of the NGO “Center for Combating Corruption” Vitaly Shabunin directly accused President Zelensky of knowingly allowing his entourage to “loot”. The tone of the communication was sharply critical and accusatory.
Comments of opposition deputies and political experts reflected more in the Western media. Attention was focused on the fact that Mindich, who was close to the president, “mysteriously escaped”, and the fact that the Office of the President was informed about his escape was questioned. The tone of this communication was critical, politically motivated.
What conclusions and actions are needed now The communication line of the executive power was built on the strategic distancing of the president and the simultaneous protection of the DPSU. However, such an approach only strengthened suspicions that the political system continues to protect its immediate environment.
This situation has two planes.
First, we see the institutional stability of the anti-corruption infrastructure. The events of the last six months have confirmed this: in the summer, attempts to reduce the role of anti-corruption bodies met with public resistance – people came out with posters and “cardboards”, and the authorities backed down. Today, we have real criminal proceedings against persons close to the head of state. This is a signal that impunity is no longer the rule. Because evil, left unpunished, tends to multiply.
Secondly, the situation also carries serious risks. It can negatively affect international trust in Ukraine and create a threat of erosion of institutional stability in the anti-corruption sphere. And this one sustainability is a critical condition for external support – financial, political and defense.
What should be? Definitely not an excuse, but recognition and action. People are people – we all make mistakes. And if you draw conclusions and admit it, going into the future together becomes at least easier and more pleasant.
Communication in wartime definitely does not tolerate “accordingly” and complete formalism, it needs humanity and a moral bow to all those who, side by side with the army, authorities, business, volunteers, activists here in Ukraine and abroad, stand for Ukraine and act.
What should the government say? Crisis communications work in such a way that it is impossible to remain silent. It is necessary to get out of communication. When a state or a leader is silent, the vacuum is filled by the emotions, conjectures and narratives of the enemy.
In a crisis, it is important to speak quickly, honestly and in human language. Not according to a template, but with empathy. What is needed is not a formal press release, but moral explanation: what happened, what is being done now and how it will not happen again. Something similar to a human thing happened when Yulia Svyridenko went public. To speak sincerely, in a human way, as with your neighbor, is the only way to stop the informational bleeding.
Is there anything good? Paradoxically, this crisis – the moment of our growing up. We learn to understand that the “elder in the room” is us. Our strength is not in the leader, but in our own maturity and cohesion, in the ability to hold the community together even when trust in the superiors falls. The regional principle is very helpful here, when leaders and opinion leaders on the ground act as such a mouthpiece of trust and honesty.
Conclusion Ukraine has already experienced many wars and sorrows, disasters and disappointments, but it still does not know how to survive the betrayal of its own people. And we will have to pass this lesson – honestly, publicly and to the end.
Kateryna Barysheva
A column is a type of material that reflects exclusively the point of view of the author. It does not claim objectivity and comprehensive coverage of the topic in question. The point of view of the editors of “Economic Pravda” and “Ukrainian Pravda” may not coincide with the author’s point of view. The editors are not responsible for the reliability and interpretation of the given information and perform exclusively the role of a carrier.