Tuesday, May 26, 2026
Today's Edition

EveryNews

Stories that matter, signal over noise

Politics

First Deputy Mayor of Svitlovods'k Shot at Colleagues — and Claims He Was Targeted for Assassination

Sergiy Savych opened fire in the executive committee building, where employees and visitors were present. Two people were wounded, police are conducting an arrest — but Savych's public account of events differs sharply from the official version.

Tetiana Suchkova-Ladik

By Tetiana Suchkova-Ladik

May 12, 2026 · 2 min read

First Deputy Mayor of Svitlovods'k Shot at Colleagues — and Claims He Was Targeted for Assassination
Місце події (Фото: Світловодська міська рада)

On May 12, shots rang out in the building of the Svitlovodsk City Council in Kirovohrad region. According to the city council's press service, gunfire from a non-lethal weapon was opened by First Deputy City Mayor Sergiy Savych — at a moment when employees and regular visitors were present in the executive committee premises.

Two people were wounded and hospitalized. Police began detention and investigative actions by the end of the day.

A day of escalation — before the shots

The incident did not occur suddenly. According to the official statement from the city council, Savych behaved aggressively in the morning: making threats and using profane language toward City Council Secretary Maksym Bakumenko. The official himself broadcast part of the conflict in live streams on social media — and these very recordings became the main evidence in the first hours after the incident.

«First Deputy City Mayor Sergiy Savych committed actions involving the use of weapons, opening fire in the executive committee building, where employees and citizens were present at that moment.»

— official statement of Svitlovodsk City Council

Savych's version: self-defense

Meanwhile, Savych himself posted his own video of the conflict online and claimed that someone was trying to kill him. According to him, he first fired a warning shot to «scare» the men, and then opened fire in their direction — because, he claims, his life was threatened by several people.

Thus, from the beginning, there are two incompatible versions in the case: the city council qualifies Savych's actions as aggression by an official in a public place; Savych himself — as forced self-defense. Which of them will be confirmed will be determined by the investigation, not by Facebook streams.

Why this is more than just a local scandal

Svitlovodsk is not the first and hardly the last case when service weapons or permitted non-lethal pistols end up at the center of a conflict between local officials. The legal regime of martial law has expanded access to weapons for certain categories of persons, and the question of controlling its possession in civilian institutions remains open.

After evacuating city council employees, police and emergency services were called to the building. A spokeswoman for the National Police of Kirovohrad region confirmed: «there was a conflict between employees, during which one of them fired several shots» — without clarifying the motives.

If the investigation establishes that Savych acted outside the bounds of self-defense, he could face charges under the article on hooliganism involving the use of weapons or intentional infliction of bodily harm — even though the shots were fired from a non-lethal pistol.

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