Tuesday, May 26, 2026
Today's Edition

EveryNews

Stories that matter, signal over noise

Politics

SBU Colonel Shot Dead at Home — He Was Hunted for Four Months

# Translation: On July 10, in Holosiivskyi district of Kyiv, counterintelligence officer Ivan Voronych was killed. Five pistol shots, two mercenaries from abroad — and according to Butusov's data, neither of them had a chance of surviving according to the organizers' plan.

Tetiana Suchkova-Ladik

By Tetiana Suchkova-Ladik

April 18, 2026 · 2 min read

SBU Colonel Shot Dead at Home — He Was Hunted for Four Months
Поліцейське авто (фото: Національна поліція України)

Around 8:30 a.m. on July 10, Colonel of the Security Service of Ukraine Ivan Voronych was killed in the courtyard of a residential building in the Holosiivskyi district of Kyiv. Five gunshots from a pistol at close range — the attacker fled on foot. Police discovered the body with a gunshot wound after patrol units, investigative and operational groups, dog handlers, and criminal investigation arrived at the scene.

Klitschko and police initially confirmed only the fact of shooting and the death of one person. The SBU officially acknowledged the death of its employee later — without a name or details.

Who is Voronych and why he became a target

According to journalist and Ukrainian Armed Forces serviceman Yuri Butusov, Ivan Voronych was one of the heads of the SBU's 5th counterintelligence directorate — a unit created in 2015 for sabotage operations in occupied territories. According to him, this very unit "eliminated dozens of the most famous commanders of Russian military and intelligence services." At the time of his death, the colonel had been serving in another SBU unit for several years.

"The evidence of involvement of liquidated Russian agents is maximally convincing, because the Russians used them as disposable."

Yuri Butusov, journalist, Censor.NET

How the perpetrators operated

According to Butusov and law enforcement investigation:

  • Narmin Guliyeva — a woman, one of two mercenaries — crossed the border through the Mayaky-Udobne checkpoint on May 15, 2025.
  • Khulalizade Hagani — a man — attempted to officially cross the same border on February 27, but was stopped: he was registered in police databases as a criminal authority. He ended up in Ukraine — illegally.
  • The killers knew Voronych's residential address and waited right under the entrance.
  • On July 13, both mercenaries were eliminated during an operation — according to Butusov's version, this was the plan of the organizers: the perpetrators were not supposed to survive.

Context: hunting in wartime

Voronych's murder is not an isolated case. According to Butusov, in 2025 there has already been at least one assassination attempt on another Ukrainian officer, who survived. The pattern — mercenaries from the post-Soviet space, illegal entry through the Moldovan border — indicates a systematic operation rather than a spontaneous act.

The SBU and National Police officially confirmed the opening of criminal proceedings under Article 348 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine (attack on the life of a law enforcement officer), but do not disclose investigation details.

If Hagani did cross the border illegally despite the entry ban until 2030 — a specific question arises: is Ukraine capable of closing the channel of illegal entry through the Moldovan border before the next group of perpetrators is already standing under someone's entrance.

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