Tuesday, May 26, 2026
Today's Edition

EveryNews

Stories that matter, signal over noise

Business

Owner of "Vyrij Industry" bought 75% of "Babel" — what it means for independent media

Oleksiy Babenko has acquired a controlling stake in Babel. This is not just a change of owner — it is a test of editorial independence and a signal to the media market. We examine the risks and opportunities of this deal.

Tetiana Suchkova-Ladik

By Tetiana Suchkova-Ladik

February 26, 2026 · 2 min read

Owner of "Vyrij Industry" bought 75% of "Babel" — what it means for independent media
Фото: DOU

A quiet but important change in the ownership of an online outlet

On February 25 businessman Oleksiy Babenko, owner and CEO of drone manufacturer Vyrij Industry, became the owner of 75% of LLC «Babel». He bought the stake from the Slovak company IG s.r.o. The remaining 25% stays with editor-in-chief and co‑founder Kateryna Kobernyk; she retains her editorial position, and no changes to the team are planned at this time.

What the new owner says

"Strong and independent media are one of the foundations of a strong and independent state in which I want to live. Acquiring a stake in 'Babel' is only the beginning. Together with the editorial team, we will be able to change the landscape of Ukrainian media"

— Oleksiy Babenko, owner of Vyrij Industry

Brief history of «Babel» and its financing model

«Babel» was launched in autumn 2018 under the brand "The Babel." Early investors included businessman Ihor Kolomoisky and top managers of 1+1 media, Yaroslav Pakhaltchuk and Oleksandr Tkachenko. In December 2019 the outlet temporarily suspended operations due to a halt in funding, but in March 2020 it resumed with new investors — later their shares were registered under the Slovak firm IG s.r.o.

In recent years the outlet has operated without additional investments from shareholders: financing was provided by grants from international donors, advertising revenue, and audience donations. The editorial team also strengthened work with its own community and mutual support projects.

What will change — risks and opportunities

Such a deal has two obvious dimensions: investment and editorial. On one hand, the arrival of a businessman with resources could mean investments in product development, technology, and expansion of journalistic projects. On the other hand, concentration of ownership creates risks for the perceived independence of the outlet, even if the editorial team formally remains in place.

Media experts note that when ownership changes occur without transparent guarantees of editorial autonomy, vulnerability to invisible influence increases. Therefore the key question is whether mechanisms to protect editorial independence will be signed and published.

What matters to the reader

For the audience, this is a question of trust: will the format of critical investigations be preserved, and will the tone of materials remain unchanged despite the business interests of the new owner. At the same time it is an opportunity: additional resources could improve the quality of journalism, expand special projects, and invest in digital services.

Conclusion

A change of owner is neither a verdict nor a guarantee. It is the beginning of a new stage that should be judged by actions, not statements. Now it is important to watch two things: 1) whether rules on editorial autonomy will be published, and 2) what investments will be directed to content and infrastructure. The answer to these questions will determine whether the deal becomes a step toward strengthening independent media in Ukraine or a test of their resilience.

Related

Latest

Business

EU Against Google: Why the Latest Fine Could Change More Than Previous Ones

# European Regulators Target Google Again — This Time Over Digital Markets Act Violations. What's Behind the Accusations and Why It Matters Beyond the Corporation European regulators have renewed their scrutiny of Google, this time focusing on alleged violations of the Digital Markets Act. The charges underscore Brussels' increasingly aggressive stance on big tech monopolies and what officials say are anticompetitive practices. The accusations center on how Google leverages its dominance across multiple digital services — from search to advertising to mobile platforms — to disadvantage competitors. Regulators claim the company is using its market power in ways that stifle innovation and limit consumer choice. The case carries significance far beyond Google itself. It signals how the EU is attempting to enforce its landmark Digital Markets Act, legislation designed to curb the gatekeeping power of tech giants. A potential penalty could set precedent for how other large technology companies face similar scrutiny. For consumers and smaller tech firms, the outcome could reshape the digital landscape by creating more room for competition. For Google, fines and operational restrictions could fundamentally alter its business model in Europe, the world's most stringent regulatory market. The case also reflects a broader geopolitical divide, with the EU pursuing a regulatory approach that contrasts sharply with the lighter-touch oversight favored in the United States.

May 26, 2026