Anastasiia Skalnietska's public story about how her ex-husband allegedly deceived her by engaging in illegal activities sparked widespread resonance on social media. Yekaterina Ostapchuk joined the discussion, commenting on Skalnietska's statement in her Instagram stories (as reported by Styler, with a link to them). At the same time, she immediately set the frame: she does not call on her audience to trust her personally and does not accuse her former colleague, but instead urges a critical attitude toward public statements and asks questions where, in her view, explanations are lacking.
Context: why Skalnietska's story went viral
In her accounts, Skalnietska claimed that she had become a victim of her ex-husband, who, according to her, had hidden from her the nature of his activities and the "astronomical" debts associated with them. She also mentioned a situation in which, as she described it, her husband ended up in prison, and she "found the money" for him to be released. It is precisely these fragments, in Ostapchuk's assessment, contain inconsistencies that require verification rather than blind acceptance.
Ostapchuk's position: fact-checking, not accusation
Ostapchuk began with a general thought about the need to verify information from public figures: "So as not to become a victim of your husband (or anyone), or a victim of a public figure who has made a statement, you need to do fact-checking. You can't blindly believe what you are told." She emphasized that she does not rule out the possibility of deception on the man's part, but doubts that Skalnietska really "knew nothing" about his activities. "I am not blaming Nastia for anything. I am asking a question. It is normal to ask questions when you doubt the truthfulness of what someone is trying to prove to you," the blogger explained.
Key questions: the car, the prison, and the declaration
Ostapchuk separately examined several details. Regarding the cars, she asked how they were purchased and in whose name they were registered: if in Skalnietska's name, then she must have been present during the paperwork, and if by power of attorney, then a notary can confirm this. On the prison situation, she asked what exactly was meant by "found the money for him to be released," to whom the funds were handed over, and whether this constitutes a public admission of bribing law enforcement officials. She separately drew attention to the declaration, in which, according to her, the husband is listed as a junior inspector of the police department for physical security in Kyiv, while Skalnietska is listed as the holder of corporate rights and the ultimate beneficiary of legal entities, with no real estate or cars appearing in the declaration. Ostapchuk also asked why the debts are mentioned only in general terms without specific amounts.
Contradictory data
Here the versions of the two sides diverge. Skalnietska claims that she knew nothing about her ex-husband's activities and became his victim, and also calls expensive gifts "counterfeits." Ostapchuk, on the contrary, allows that there was deception on the man's part, but questions the thesis of Skalnietska's complete unawareness, citing the declaration and the logic of property registration. At the same time, Ostapchuk openly admits that she herself may be wrong: "I believe that she too became his victim. I hope I am wrong, and Nastia either simply doesn't know how to tell the story or will yet show all the evidence." Thus, in Ostapchuk's assessment, neither side has provided conclusive evidence, and her breakdown remains a series of questions rather than established facts.
Conclusion
Ostapchuk's comment is neither a confirmation nor a refutation of Skalnietska's story: it is a public call for fact-checking and a set of questions to which, in her words, there are still no answers. Until documents, testimonies, or official explanations appear, both versions — of complete unawareness and of complicity — remain unverified. The audience is left to wait and see whether Skalnietska will provide the evidence that Ostapchuk refers to.
