Ukrainians criticized the NBU over the incident with Pavlo Polyarush

Ukrainians criticized the NBU over the incident with Pavlo Polyarush

The National Bank of Ukraine (NBU) did not adequately respond to the public outrage caused by the incident involving department head Polyarush. Insufficient public communication and a lack of response to the scandal have led to a wave of critical comments directed at the head of the National Bank, Andriy Pyshnyi, on social media.

This was revealed in the comments under the NBU’s post regarding the effectiveness of the institution’s work. There was a storm of criticism on social media regarding the incident involving the head of the NBU’s problematic assets department, Pavlo Polyarush, who, while under the influence of alcohol, threatened a serviceman with a weapon.

On October 9, NBU head Andriy Pyshnyi published a Facebook post emphasizing the institution’s achievements and effectiveness. However, commentators focused on the incident with Pavlo Polyarush, as evidenced by over 230 user comments demanding explanations from the NBU regarding this situation.

"When will the investigation into the attack on the serviceman, whom Polyarush threatened with an award weapon he does not own, take place? Where did he get such a weapon, if he wasn’t awarded it? Why does he have such a weapon, while thousands of our servicemen, who deserve it most of all through blood, sweat, and their health, do not? I don’t see your reaction!" for example, wrote Maksym Beliba.

Katya Romaniv also addressed the NBU head with the same question: "So what’s happening with the investigation regarding Polyarush, Mr. Pyshnyi? And why are the NBU and the Ministry of Defence unaware of his award pistol, with which he threatened to shoot a serviceman in the knees? Will there be some action or not?"

Tetyana Marchenko tried to shift the conversation from questions of NBU strategy to Polyarush’s case. "Strategic strategy sessions are all very important... But what are your actions regarding the specific act of your employee? Or is it not a royal matter?" she asked Mr. Pyshnyi.

Readers emphasized that the NBU’s silence on the scandal with its top manager would only increase public outrage. They openly noted that no one would forget about it.

Commentators are demanding a clear response from the NBU regarding Polyarush’s behavior, his connections to the President’s Office, and the progress of the incident investigation. However, the National Bank has not made any statements on this matter and has not communicated with the public about its future steps. Many noted that this silence appears as an attempt to avoid accountability for the incident.

On September 26, 2024, a conflict occurred in Kyiv’s parking lot involving NBU official Pavlo Polyarush and an Armed Forces of Ukraine serviceman, Andriy Tratsevskiy (call sign "Immortal"). According to the serviceman, Polyarush, driving a Lexus while intoxicated, provoked an accident situation, and then began threatening with an award weapon, promising to shoot Tratsevskiy in the leg.

After the incident, the police seized Polyarush’s pistol and opened two criminal proceedings: for "threatening murder" and "causing light bodily harm." Media reports indicate that Polyarush received the award pistol not for military merits but thanks to his connections with the President’s Office through his civil wife, Iryna Mudra, a deputy head of the President’s Office. This caused significant public resonance since Polyarush is not a combat participant, raising questions about the legality of his weapon acquisition.

Despite the wide discussion of the situation on social media, the NBU has not made a public statement regarding the incident. Many users are demanding explanations and actions regarding Polyarush, but the bank has ignored the comments, continuing to publish information about its effectiveness.

The key challenge for the NBU in this situation is that the lack of communication appears as an attempt to hide the problem, rather than address it. For many citizens, the bank’s silence has become a symbol of indifference to incidents involving its employees, further eroding trust in the institution.

Despite public demands for a clear response to the situation, the bank has not reacted for society regarding its further actions or the results of the internal investigation. The absence of a response only deepens public dissatisfaction and casts doubt on the transparency and accountability of the state institution.