Shariy criticises hromadske’s Kuleshov report: what the outlet reported
The dispute concerns a report on Andrii Kuleshov, taken to hospital from a military site near Kyiv on November 2. Travel to Russia is only part of the story.
Anatoly Shariy criticised hromadske on November 5, 2026, over its report on Andrii Kuleshov, one of the men taken to hospital on November 2 from a military deployment site in Petropavlivska Borshchahivka, Kyiv region. In a Telegram post, Shariy focused on the account of Kuleshov’s travel to Russia in 2015–2021 and accused the outlet of bias.
Shariy attributed the Donetsk-born man’s journeys to the need to earn a living and contrasted the journalists’ scrutiny of him with claims about Volodymyr Zelenskyy’s past ties to Russia. This is the post author’s argument, not an established motive for Kuleshov’s travel. The post provides no evidence that the editorial decision was dictated by the authorities.
The article by Denys Bulavin and Ihor Yushchenko appeared on hromadske on November 4. It covers more than Russia: the journalists identified the hospitalised man, described his employment history and, citing military and security sources, reported that he had allegedly left his unit without authorisation this year. According to the outlet, Kuleshov is 36.
The information concerning Russia rests on different types of evidence. Hromadske found a CV for a person with a matching name and date of birth, listing work as a waiter in Novorossiysk from July to November 2014. Citing leaked databases, the outlet reported at least 20 border crossings in both directions between Ukraine, Russia and temporarily occupied territories in 2015–2021. These are crossings, not 20 separate trips to Russia. MediaVisnyk could not independently verify those records. A woman whom hromadske identified as Kuleshov’s mother confirmed to its journalists that he had worked in Russia and returned to Ukraine in 2022.
Another important discrepancy concerns the site itself. Shariy called it a “TCC torture chamber”, referring to a territorial recruitment centre. In an official statement on November 3, the State Bureau of Investigation (SBI) described the private house as temporary accommodation for National Guard personnel returned after leaving their units without authorisation. The bureau opened criminal proceedings into possible abuse of authority or official powers by military personnel. Allegations of violations therefore require investigation, rather than categorical labels that pre-empt its findings.
According to hromadske’s report from the November 3 briefing, National Guard commanders acknowledged that four people inside the house needed medical assistance. They were brought out of the building. Law enforcement and military officials rejected the circulating torture allegations. The SBI, the outlet reported, is examining the conditions in which people were held and reports of possible coercion.
In a later article on November 4, hromadske also presented the account of Tetiana Kirieieva, who had sought Kuleshov’s hospitalisation, and her lawyer, Rustam Nuriiev. The lawyer alleged that Kuleshov had been mistreated and said he had contacted the SBI after an alleged beating on October 29; the outlet noted that the bureau had not commented on this at that point. Those allegations and the military’s denials remain competing accounts of the circumstances. Biographical information about Kuleshov’s work in Russia does not, in itself, answer the question of how he was treated at the military site.
Primary sources
Documents and statements this story is based on.