Tuesday, May 26, 2026
Today's Edition

EveryNews

Stories that matter, signal over noise

Politics

Police Fled — KORD Eliminated: What Is Being Investigated After the Terror Attack in Kyiv

Six dead, footage of patrol officers fleeing from a shooter, and legally registered weapons with permits renewed just four months before the attack. Klymenko launched an official investigation, but key questions remain unanswered.

Tetiana Suchkova-Ladik

By Tetiana Suchkova-Ladik

April 19, 2026 · 2 min read

Police Fled — KORD Eliminated: What Is Being Investigated After the Terror Attack in Kyiv
Ігор Клименко (Фото: МВС)

On Saturday, April 18, 58-year-old Moscow native Dmitro Vasylchenko opened fire on pedestrians on Demiivska Street in the Holosiivskyi district of Kyiv, then barricaded himself in a Velmart supermarket with hostages. KORД special forces eliminated him during the assault. Six people were killed, more than ten hospitalized — including a child.
But parallel to the chronicle of the terrorist attack itself, another story unfolded.

Video that cannot be ignored

Footage appeared online showing patrol police officers fleeing from an armed attacker, leaving civilians without protection. Interior Minister Ihor Klymenko reacted publicly and harshly.

"To serve and protect" is not just a slogan. It must be backed by appropriate professional actions. Especially in critical moments when lives depend on it.

Ihor Klymenko, Minister of Internal Affairs

Klymenko instructed the head of the National Police Ivan Vyhivskyi to conduct a service investigation and submit all materials to the State Bureau of Investigation. According to the minister, the results will be made public "in the shortest possible time."

Three parallel investigations

While police investigate their own officers, the Prosecutor General's Office and the SBU are dealing with the terrorist attack itself. Prosecutor General Ruslan Kravchenko announced a criminal case under Part 3 of Article 258 of the Criminal Code — a terrorist act resulting in deaths. Investigators are separately establishing the circumstances of issuing and renewing the weapons permit.

This is where the most uncomfortable fact lies: Vasylchenko used a legally registered hunting rifle Kel-Tec SUB-2000. The permit for it was officially renewed in December 2025 — four months before the terrorist attack. Who signed the renewal and whether the grounds were verified is now being determined by the investigation.

President Volodymyr Zelensky added another dimension: according to him, the eliminated terrorist had previously been prosecuted. OSINT analysts identified Vasylchenko's Facebook account with anti-Ukrainian and antisemitic posts from 2016–2019.

What was actually accomplished

  • Negotiators spent 40 minutes trying to establish contact — the attacker made no demands
  • After killing one hostage, КОРД decided to launch an assault
  • Four hostages were rescued alive
  • The attacker was eliminated during the operation

This is the result of special forces work. Questions about the patrol officers who left the scene and about the weapons permit system are separate, and answers to them have not yet been obtained.

The service investigation of police actions will be transferred to the SBI — the agency that by law has the authority to open cases against law enforcement officers. If the SBI opens proceedings, this will set a precedent for public accountability of patrol officers for their conduct during an active threat. If the case is closed at the level of "internal conclusions" — the question of whether such an investigation format actually changes real practice will remain unanswered.

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