Information attacks against the Security Service of Ukraine during the war raise questions about the responsibility of public experts and media outlets that disseminate offensive characterizations of the Ukrainian intelligence service’s leadership. Volodymyr Tsybulko stated this while commenting on an NV article in which political scientist Volodymyr Fesenko quoted a characterization of Oleksandr Poklad as the "president’s service dog."
"Fiala’s structures continue to drag the SBU through the mud. Moreover, this concerns an intelligence service that conducts successful operations against the Russian aggressor and is one of the Ukrainian institutions most hated by moscow. Now Fesenko, writing for NV and referring to Ukrainska Pravda, repeats offensive words about the head of the SBU. One cannot help but recall the meme: it seemed the bottom had already been reached, but then someone knocked from below," Volodymyr Tsybulko said.
According to him, any questions about the activities of the SBU leadership must be considered exclusively on the basis of facts and established circumstances, rather than assumptions.
"The most interesting thing is that Fesenko himself acknowledges that there are no direct legal accusations or suspicions against Poklad. At the same time, the public space is discussing assumptions about possible ties between the SBU leadership and individuals involved in criminal proceedings. A natural question arises: are we talking about objective analysis or an attempt to shape a negative attitude toward a specific leader?" the expert stated.
He emphasized that in wartime it is necessary to distinguish between legitimate criticism of law enforcement agencies’ activities and information rhetoric that may be used by the enemy.
"russia is systematically trying to discredit Ukraine’s intelligence services because they are inflicting real losses on it. And when the Ukrainian information space is filled with insults directed at the SBU leadership, this creates additional opportunities for Russian propaganda. One may disagree with the president’s personnel decisions, demand reforms and independent oversight. But turning a discussion about national security into a contest of insults is irresponsible," Volodymyr Tsybulko believes.