A Coup in Uman. The Mayor Gave Her First Interview and Named the Notorious Instigator of Her Overthrow

In the city of Uman, in the Cherkasy region, a “coup” took place. Mayor Iryna Pletnyova, elected in 2020 as a candidate from the For the Future party, received a “people’s no confidence” and the political force decided to withdraw her from office. This is, in essence, a precedent in Ukraine, when community residents, outside the election period, used a lawful procedure by collecting signatures and removed the incumbent mayor.

However, as Glavkom found out, the Uman “coup” has not only a “popular” initiative but also another driver. His name is Anton Yatsenko. He is a people's deputy of Ukraine of many convocations. In several recent elections to the Verkhovna Rada, the politician was elected in single-member district No. 200 with its center precisely in Uman!

In fact, Mr. Yatsenko is an extraordinary, very controversial figure known across the country. According to open data, he has been involved in high politics since the early 2000s: first as an assistant to several people's deputies from the Socialist Party, Our Ukraine, and the Yulia Tymoshenko Bloc. It was the BYuT in 2007 that first gave Yatsenko the pass to the Verkhovna Rada—he was elected a deputy.

In the Sixth Convocation of the Rada, Anton Yatsenko chaired the subcommittee on regulation of the public procurement market and state orders; he was the subject of numerous journalistic investigations dedicated to monopolization of the public procurement market. In connection with this, Yatsenko, according to numerous media publications, was nicknamed the “godfather of the tender mafia.”

In 2012 the politician, already under the banner of the Party of Regions, won elections in district No. 200 for the first time, which since then has become his “fiefdom.”

In 2017 investigative journalists found in Yatsenko’s father-in-law a palace of 1500 sq. m. and a number of elite apartments and commercial properties with an estimated value of $8 million.

Pletnyova and Yatsenko have their own long history. The irony of fate is that she effectively took office as Uman’s mayor as his protégé. But later the relationship with her former patron soured.

Glavkom took the first interview with the mayor of Uman after her overthrow. At the time of the conversation, the official is on leave and preparing to appeal the commission’s and the party’s decisions. Pletnyova believes that Anton Yatsenko, whom she served as an assistant for many years, is behind the political crisis in the city.

Uman Mayor Iryna Pletnyova was previously an assistant to people's deputy Anton Yatsenko

data: YouControl

Pletnyova admits that she broke with Yatsenko when the full-scale war began.

“The start of the full-scale invasion showed our (with Anton Yatsenko—Glavkom) differences in political views and, more generally, in the vision of Ukraine’s future,” the mayor said, avoiding specifics.

During the conversation, the city chief often refers to Yatsenko simply as “the people's deputy.” This label can be interpreted in different ways. First, he is a people's deputy, elected from Uman and the adjacent districts. Or, for example, the politician is so close to his voters that he included in his team as assistants three current deputies of the Uman City Council: Alina Boreiko (part of the For the Future party faction, a paid assistant to the deputy), Maryna Tymoshenko (head of the Batkivshchyna faction, also a paid assistant), and Diana Bilyanivska (head of the For the Future faction, works on a voluntary basis).

8 September, the For the Future party congress withdrew you from the position of Uman mayor. Please tell us, will you obey the party decision or do you plan to continue going to work?

Right now I am on a week-long leave since yesterday (8 September—Glavkom), without pay. According to the law, no decisions made at the party congress were conveyed to me or to the city council. Therefore the question (of recall by popular initiative—Glavkom) is not completely resolved yet. Nevertheless, I intend to appeal the decision of the territorial election commission in court, as well as the decision of the party congress.

How do you personally assess what happened during the party congress?

If that can even be called a party congress… I wasn’t there. What Yatsenko (people's deputy of six convocations Anton Yatsenko, last re-elected in 2019 in district No. 200 centered in Uman—Glavkom) is doing I don’t even want to comment on, because it concerns not only him but casts a shadow over the entire party line. It’s unpleasant for me.

You have known Anton Yatsenko for many years. What connects you to him?

I have known him since 2012. From 2015 I was his assistant; I worked with him for a long period. He also supported my candidacy in the mayoral election in 2020. But the start of the full-scale invasion showed our differences in political views and, more broadly, in the vision of Ukraine’s future. Then, of course, he didn’t like that he lost control over Uman. Although he remains the people's deputy from our district. But he would like to be something more than just a people's deputy.

So you are implying that he wanted to be both a deputy and at the same time manage the Uman City Council?

I’m not implying; I’m stating it as it is.

So it was after the start of the full-scale invasion that your views diverged? Was it for political reasons or patriotic grounds?

Yes, on 25 February 2022 I made the decision on the Program for ensuring national resistance measures. I did it publicly and then in a phone call I was told that I was making a big mistake and shouldn’t do it. (Previously Pletnyova told journalists that on 25 February 2022 Yatsenko urged not to allocate funds for the territorial defense because Kyiv could fall in three days and it would be necessary to negotiate with the “new authority.” Yatsenko denied those words—Glavkom).

Did you manage to talk with the party leadership—Taras Batenko and Ihor Palytsia—before the congress? If so, what did they tell you?

I never spoke with Batenko, and Ihor Petrovych Palytsia has been ignoring me for some time.

So there may have been internal arrangements between Palytsia and Yatsenko?

I can’t assert that because I don’t know and don’t see how they communicate. But if Palytsia spoke with me before, and after Yatsenko rejoined For the Future he stopped, conclusions are not hard to draw (in September 2019 Yatsenko joined the For the Future deputy group in parliament. In 16 May he moved to the Batkivshchyna faction. In 7 April 2026 he returned to the For the Future group—Glavkom). Under the law on local self-government and the party statute, if a deputy does not attend sessions and does not work in the community, they must be recalled. But here they do not recall those deputies who do not work; instead they recall those who stayed and work. A strange position.

The For the Future faction in the city council is the largest and counts 13 deputies. How many of these officials has the party withdrawn or is trying to withdraw?

They withdrew one, are trying to withdraw seven more. In total they attempted to recall eight deputies. The reason is that these deputies stayed in the city, work, and do not obey Yatsenko. Those who obey Yatsenko simply do not attend sessions on his instruction.

And they remain incumbent deputies, correct?

Yes, no one is recalling them. And the Uman City Council’s appeal to the political party is not being considered; they didn’t even bother to give us a response.

What further fate awaits the others? Because yesterday Yatsenko gave a comment to the local press saying they will continue the recall process. Could his words be seen as an intent to crush those who won’t bow to him?

That’s his right, and I understand that he will not back down.

When did you last communicate with Yatsenko? And why did you stop maintaining contact?

Our contacts were cut off at the start of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. Regarding me and the city council, a criminal case is still open over holding an extraordinary session on 25 February 2022. Then the Program for ensuring national resistance measures for 2022-2024 years was adopted and funds were allocated to a military unit that the Russians destroyed on the first night of the full-scale invasion. In total, 1 million UAH were allocated from the city budget to support the Defense Forces. But for some reason, in the people’s deputy’s view, this is “forgery of documents.”

Tell us how the process of collecting signatures under the popular initiative procedure began and how long it lasted?

This is revenge by the people's deputy for not being able to influence the city and all the decisions made in Uman. I can’t say the exact start date, it seems to be the end of July 2026. By law 20 days are given to collect signatures and 20 days for the election commission to process the documents.

Do you know how exactly the signatures were collected? Tell us your version.

By procedure an initiative group is chosen, and its members are supposed to collect signatures. But in reality completely unrelated people collected the signatures, mostly pensioners or students. I can’t verify them, but I’ll say this: after the TEC’s checks it turned out that at least two persons from the initiative group do not have a registered place of residence in the Uman community at all. So the procedure was already violated.

The second violation: signatures must be collected exclusively by members of the initiative group, but they were collected by outsiders. Moreover, signature sheets were often filled out in advance in a tent, not at the moment when people were being talked to.

The recall of the Uman mayor from office was supported by a person who died this past summer 2025

photo: Iryna Pletnyova/Facebook

And what about verification of the signatures themselves? Did people really understand what they were signing, and was this verified?

Whether those people actually signed is a big question. How can you verify it if the sheet doesn’t even have a phone number to call and ask: “Ma’am or sir, did you sign and how were you told what you were signing for?”.

As is known, some people signed under the pretext of reducing the water supply and wastewater tariff, which is indeed very high (158 UAH). But that does not depend on whether Pletnyova or another head is in office. Until a new water pipeline with energy-efficient pumps and without water losses along the way is built (and that is almost 140 kilometers from the supply point to the city), the situation will not change. Until sewage systems are reconstructed, talking about tariff reduction is impossible. The city itself sadly lacks underground water resources. Therefore reducing losses and improving energy efficiency will at least stop the rapid increase in the water tariff.

And what is the price of the new water pipeline and when is it planned to be put into operation?

Over 9 billion UAH. The tender winner has already been chosen; the customer of the works is the Reconstruction Service in Dnipropetrovsk region. The deadline for completion of the works is 31 December 2027.

The terms for collecting and processing signatures were very tight. How did the territorial election commission (TEC) work under these conditions?

The TEC cannot either accelerate or extend the terms, because the law clearly allocates 20 days. The TEC consisted of 18 people, but some of them didn’t come at all and did not work. They only showed up on Friday, 4 September, when a decision had to be made. And those commission members who actually worked also have primary jobs, so it’s understandable they could not process the entire array of signature sheets.

What violations were found during processing of the sheets that were checked?

The commission sent data to the department that maintains the State Voter Register, but there were a lot of errors: information was entered incorrectly or people are not registered in the Uman community at all. One case is outright shocking: a signature sheet was executed by a person who died this past summer 2025. Of the total number, only 19% of signature sheets were processed. And even from that portion over 20% contain false data or signatures of people who do not have the right to vote in the Uman community.

How could such data get into the signature sheets?

This suggests that databases were used. The people's deputy has a humanitarian aid distribution headquarters where you can get aid only by presenting a passport. I don’t want to accuse anyone directly, but this raises certain doubts.

Also explain the situation regarding the position of secretary of the Uman City Council. Why did the previous secretary Kateryna Tereshchenko resign of her own accord?

The previous secretary was a person from the For the Future party; she remained a deputy. She submitted her resignation on 7 September of her own accord. Yatsenko also has a prejudiced attitude toward Kateryna Tereshchenko.

A new candidate for city council secretary is proposed by the mayor. Why did you choose Rostyslav Zavoloka, who was ultimately elected by secret ballot?

If you analyze the composition of the deputies who remain, some simply do not attend sessions, others have serious obligations at their main workplaces. I liked how Rostyslav worked as the head of the commission; he studied question details carefully and discussed them thoroughly with deputies.

Rostyslav is a private entrepreneur. Other deputies work at the university or in other jobs. Having analyzed his work as a deputy and commission head, I believe he can handle the responsibilities of secretary.

We quote Yatsenko from his comment to local media: “Zavoloka is an ‘absolutely unworthy candidate,’ he is a ‘black currency exchanger in Uman.’ ” How do you comment on that?

I don’t know that. But I fully understand that Yatsenko would like to have a controllable person, and Rostyslav certainly will not be that.

In that same comment Yatsenko promised he would try to replace city council secretary Zavoloka. How do you think they might do this?

At the moment I don’t see how he can do that. Since 2022 he has had a dream of replacing Pletnyova and dissolving the city council. Well, we’ll see how he goes about it.

Ms. Iryna, what is your relationship with the head of the Cherkasy Regional Military Administration Ihor Taburets? And did you speak with him at all about your recall?

I did not speak with him on this issue. He, of course, knows about the situation. But how could he influence my further fate? In no way; here you can only observe. Our relations are purely work-related: written instructions arrive, letters, obligations, and the city council prepares responses to requests. It is standard working interaction foreseen by law. There is no pressure from him; he is a moderate person.

Did your opponents appeal to the issue of Hasidic pilgrimage to the city, trying to use this factor against you in the struggle for voters’ support? Did the Hasidic diaspora intervene in this political process at all?

I don’t recall that happening. And how could the Hasidic diaspora intervene in our political process? Yes, there is a small number of people who permanently live or are registered in the city, but it is an extremely small number. It absolutely does not influence public opinion or the final result.

Vitaliy Taranenko, Mark Lyubarov, Glavkom