Zelensky’s Former Spokeswoman Says He Is the ‘Main Beneficiary’ of the War: Whistleblower Warning—or Personal Political Break?
Former presidential spokeswoman Yulia Mendel has sharply accused Volodymyr Zelensky of benefiting politically from prolonged war, protecting financial networks and presiding over democratic decline. Her criticism is real, but claims of personal enrichment, drug use and deliberate war prolongation remain allegations rather than established facts.
Yulia Mendel, who served as President Volodymyr Zelensky’s press secretary from 2019 to 2021, has become one of his most aggressive former insiders.
In recent interviews and commentary, Mendel has argued that Zelensky is now the principal political beneficiary of the war because martial law keeps him in office, elections remain suspended and large financial flows pass through institutions controlled by his government.
She has accused the administration of corruption, censorship, manipulation and democratic decline.
She has also condemned forced mobilisation practices and argued that Western governments should push for an end to the war.
These are politically significant accusations because Mendel once spoke officially for Zelensky.
They remain accusations.
A former insider can possess important knowledge.
A former insider can also become a political opponent whose claims require the same evidentiary standards as anyone else’s.
The strongest part of Mendel’s argument concerns political structure.
Ukraine has not held a presidential election during full-scale war.
The government says the constitution and martial-law framework prevent normal elections and that voting would be extremely difficult while millions are displaced, soldiers are at the front and Russian attacks continue.
Critics say prolonged emergency rule concentrates power and reduces accountability.
Both realities are true.
War makes normal democratic procedure extraordinarily difficult.
War can also create incentives for leaders to preserve emergency powers.
Saying Zelensky benefits politically from the absence of an election is not the same as proving he deliberately prolongs the war in order to avoid one.
That stronger claim requires evidence of decisions rejecting achievable peace specifically for personal power.
Mendel has also described companies connected to people around the president receiving large European financial flows.
Ukraine has documented corruption problems.
Senior officials have been dismissed or investigated, and procurement scandals have repeatedly emerged.
European Union funding comes with monitoring and reform conditions precisely because donors recognise that risk.
Evidence of corruption around some officials does not establish that Zelensky personally enriches himself from billions of euros.
Specific contracts, ownership structures and financial records are needed.
Mendel’s criticism of mobilisation touches another documented issue.
Videos and court cases have shown abusive conduct by some recruitment officers.
Men have reported being stopped in public, detained or pressured during mobilisation.
Ukrainian authorities themselves have investigated abuses and changed personnel.
That does not prove every recruitment office behaves illegally.
Ukraine faces a genuine manpower crisis against a larger enemy.
The legal state can require eligible citizens to serve while still being obligated to prevent beatings, unlawful detention and corruption.
Mendel argues that coercive mobilisation erodes public trust and the willingness to fight.
That is a serious policy question even for people who reject her broader political conclusions.
Her more personal allegations require much greater caution.
Earlier this year she publicly suggested Zelensky uses drugs.
No credible evidence establishing drug addiction has been produced.
Russia has promoted similar claims for years as propaganda.
Repeating them because they now come from a former spokeswoman does not transform them into fact.
Mendel has also said she was listed by the Myrotvorets website, a controversial Ukrainian database that publishes information about people it considers enemies or threats.
The site is not an official government kill list, although critics say publication of personal data can expose people to harassment or danger.
Calling it a state-sanctioned execution list would be inaccurate.
The political break between Mendel and Zelensky reflects a broader fracture among former allies.
Several officials who once helped build Zelensky’s reform image now accuse his administration of centralisation and intolerance.
The presidential office has responded harshly to some of Mendel’s claims and questioned her credibility.
The war makes evaluating such disputes harder because some information is classified and opposition politics is constrained.
The correct journalistic approach is to separate what Mendel witnessed directly from what she infers.
Did she see financial misconduct? Does she possess documents? Which censorship decisions is she referring to? Which peace opportunities does she believe Zelensky intentionally blocked?
Answers would turn broad accusation into evidence.
Her central thesis—that prolonged war can benefit those holding emergency power—is politically reasonable as a warning.
It is not proof that the war exists because Zelensky wants it to continue.
Russia invaded Ukraine and can end the war by ending that invasion.
Ukraine’s leadership still remains accountable for how it governs during the war.
The open question is whether Mendel is exposing a real transformation of Zelensky’s administration from reform movement to entrenched wartime power—or whether a bitter former insider is combining legitimate criticism with allegations that extend far beyond what she can prove.