Tuesday, May 26, 2026
Today's Edition

EveryNews

Stories that matter, signal over noise

Politics

Terror Attack in Holosiivsky: Police Fled, Shooter Had Legal Permit — Both Situations Now Under Investigation

# Six Dead, Police Who Abandoned Posts, and a Rifle With Permission Extended to December 2025: Kyiv Terror Attack on April 18 Raises Two Uncomfortable Questions About Police Selection Quality and Permit System Effectiveness Six people killed, police officers who abandoned their positions, and a rifle with an active permit extended until December 2025. The Kyiv terror attack on April 18 simultaneously raised two uncomfortable questions — about the quality of police recruitment and the effectiveness of the licensing system.

Tetiana Suchkova-Ladik

By Tetiana Suchkova-Ladik

April 19, 2026 · 2 min read

Terror Attack in Holosiivsky: Police Fled, Shooter Had Legal Permit — Both Situations Now Under Investigation
Руслан Кравченко (Фото: пресслужба Офісу генпрокурора)

On the evening of April 18, a 58-year-old Moscow native who lived in Kyiv as an internally displaced person from Bakhmut opened fire on pedestrians on Demiyivska Street in the Holosiyiv District. He approached people at close range and fired single shots from a carbine — given the chaotic nature of the attack, according to the Ministry of Internal Affairs, civilians had almost no chance. Six people were killed and more than 15 were wounded. After the street, the man entered a Velmart supermarket and took hostages.

Forty minutes and one dead hostage

Negotiations lasted approximately 40 minutes. According to Interior Minister Igor Klymenko, the shooter ignored any contact attempts — he did not even respond to an offer to bring in turnstiles for the wounded inside. After he shot one of the hostages, the KORD unit conducted an assault. The shooter was eliminated.

Simultaneously, an apartment where he was registered caught fire — the fire started at the same time as the terrorist attack. As reported by Prosecutor General Ruslan Kravchenko, the man had previously been subject to criminal prosecution.

Police officers who left

The behavior of some patrol officers became a separate issue: according to media reports, several police officers abandoned their positions during the shooting. Klymenko ordered an internal investigation, with National Police Chief Ivan Vygovsky receiving the corresponding task. Police officers involved in the incident were suspended from duty.

"The investigation will establish the legality of police actions during the detention of terrorists."

Prosecutor General Ruslan Kravchenko

Kravchenko also confirmed the opening of criminal proceedings for improper performance of official duties — under the corresponding article of the Criminal Code. All collected information is being transferred to the State Bureau of Investigation.

Legal carbine and medical certificate with questions

The most acute systemic issue is the weapon. As Klymenko confirmed, the carbine was registered legally and was permitted for purchase by civilians. Moreover: in December 2025, the man personally brought it to the permit authorities, provided a medical certificate, and had his permit renewed.

  • The investigation is checking which medical institution issued the certificate.
  • The compatibility of a prior conviction and permit renewal for a weapon is also at the center of the investigation.
  • Klymenko stated that there will be no mass inspections of weapon owners following the terrorist attack — and added that he supports the legalization of weapons for self-defense.

In other words, the minister, whose department is now investigating how a criminal with a prior conviction retained a legal weapons permit, simultaneously advocates for expanded access to weapons. This is not necessarily a contradiction — but it is precisely the argument that opponents of legalization will use first.

If the investigation establishes that the medical certificate was fraudulent or issued in violation of regulations, a concrete question arises: is it sufficient for Ukraine to strengthen control over the existing permit system — or is its architecture fundamentally not designed to check people with a criminal past?

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