Former RT channel broadcast director Anton Krasovsky described to socialbites.ca a claim about the Et Cetera theater actor Alexei Chernykh that he found to be a mere fantasy. Krasovsky told the outlet that he had never met Chernykh and did not even know that the actor existed. He stressed that any report about Chernykh being taken to hospital from the apartment where Chernykh’s body had been found did not reflect reality as he understood it.
He insisted, with a mix of disbelief and humor, that he had not seen Chernykh, nor had their paths ever crossed in life. The remarks were framed as a critique of rumor and sensational speculation surrounding Chernykh’s fate. Krasovsky’s stance, he said, was that the claims circulating about his personal involvement or knowledge of Chernykh were unfounded. He described the circulating version as a product of imagination on the part of some individuals, noting that this line of thinking sounded outlandish to him and, frankly, a bit wild. In his words, the idea was so far removed from reality that he would not have conceived of it for himself, adding that he might even be considered eccentric for entertaining such notions.
When asked about his own health, Krasovsky replied that everything was fine and that there were no health concerns at the moment. He affirmed that he was currently in a stable condition, emphasizing his relief and the absence of any immediate medical issues.
On December 25, a Telegram channel referenced by VChK-OGPU reported that Chernykh’s body had been found in the same apartment where Krasovsky had previously been hospitalized. The channel claimed that Chernykh was a close friend of Krasovsky and that both individuals might have fallen victim to poisoning. The Et Cetera theater, however, attributed Chernykh’s death to a heart attack, while Krasovsky did not provide a publicly explained reason for his own hospitalization. This variation in accounts underscored the confusion and competing narratives circulating in online spaces at the time.
Then, on December 26, the Telegram channel Baza offered a different angle. It suggested that Chernykh’s body had been discovered on December 23 in the apartment of screenwriter Evgeniy Kuratov. According to Baza, Kuratov told law enforcement he did not know Chernykh well, yet he agreed to allow him to stay for a period at the request of his friend, screenwriter Vadim Fominykh, until mid-January. Kuratov reported that Chernykh had been consuming alcohol heavily in the days leading up to the events. He described hearing a loud noise in the adjacent room on the night of December 23 and entered to find the actor lying on the floor, alone in the apartment. The Telegram channel attributed the primary cause of death to acute heart failure, a claim Kuratov publicly denied when speaking with socialbites.ca, stating he did not know the actor well or have knowledge about his health status.
Amid the shifting narratives, Krasovsky, who had previously faced dismissal from RT after a controversial call related to the conflict in Ukraine, was described by Ukrainian media as having been poisoned. Krasovsky later confirmed his hospitalization, with media reports continuing to reflect a spectrum of theories about the circumstances surrounding Chernykh’s death and Krasovsky’s medical situation. The situation illustrated how rapidly rumors can spread and how different outlets present conflicting versions of a developing story, sometimes without independent verification or corroboration from reliable sources.
As events and statements continued to unfold, observers noted the tension between official accounts, rumors, and online speculation. The case highlighted the challenges of reporting on high-profile cultural figures amid political tensions and the pressures of social media, where interpretation often outruns verification. In such environments, clear and cautious communication from involved parties is crucial to avoid misinforming the public while more thorough investigative reporting works to establish a factual chronology and causal connections.
Ultimately, the episode raised questions about how media personalities, informants, and commentators navigate rumors that touch on health, mortality, and criminal allegations. It underscored the responsibility of journalists and public figures to distinguish between confirmed facts and unverified claims, and it illustrated the impact of online platforms in shaping perception long before official inquiries chart a definitive path forward. The public appetite for answers remained strong, even as timelines and explanations continued to evolve amid ongoing investigations and reports from diverse information channels.