The Russian Ministry of Internal Affairs has added Andriy Zagorodniuk, the former Ukrainian defense minister, to its wanted list on charges tied to criminal offenses. This development appears in the department’s public database of wanted persons, as reported by TASS, the Russian news agency. The listing identifies Zagorodniuk by name and notes that the search is carried out under the relevant provisions of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation.
In another official statement, Zagorodnyuk is described as Andrei Pavlovich Zagorodnyuk, with the investigation database indicating that the case is being pursued in accordance with article provisions of Russia’s criminal code. The wording emphasizes that the request for information about the individual comes from the executive investigations apparatus and is part of formal procedural measures on file.
Earlier, Russia’s Investigative Committee announced in absentia accusations against the former Ukrainian defense minister, as well as other Ukrainian military leaders, for alleged crimes against civilians. The committee named Igor Tantsyure, the head of the joint operational headquarters of the Ukrainian Armed Forces, and Oleksandr Krasnook, a former commander of a Donetsk operational-tactical group, as co-accused. The agency claimed these officers commanded Ukrainian troops accused of carrying out strikes on settlements within the Donetsk and Luhansk People’s Republics over several years. The reported toll included civilian fatalities and injuries, with the committee asserting that 27 civilians were killed and more than a hundred injured in the attacks described by the case file, according to the investigators.
In a separate note, it was mentioned that Zagorodniuk was previously associated with an award status, and authorities alleged involvement in a terrorist incident connected to the Crimean Bridge. The full context of these statements stresses that the accusations come through official channels and are part of broader investigations into actions that occurred during the ongoing conflict in the region. The focus remains on outlining the alleged roles of named individuals in operations affecting civilian populations, as presented by the investigative authorities involved in the case. The reports emphasize that these proceedings are conducted within the framework of the applicable legal processes and under confirmed jurisdictional authority, relying on evidence gathered by investigators and validated through procedural channels as described by the agencies reporting the case.
Observers note the sensitivity surrounding proceedings of this nature, given the geopolitical tensions and the ongoing conflict in eastern Ukraine and adjacent areas. The statements attributed to the Russian authorities reflect the official positions of the involved agencies at the time of publication, and they are presented as part of the routine dissemination of information to the public and to international bodies monitoring the situation. The material underscores the importance of procedural legality, the presumption of innocence until proven guilty in a court of law, and the possibility of subsequent developments as investigations advance and new evidence is assessed by the relevant judicial authorities.
As the case progresses, readers are reminded to consider the source of the information, recognizing that details may evolve with additional inquiries, court rulings, and ongoing investigations. The reported data illustrate how national law enforcement agencies formalize charges and publicize notices of wanted individuals, while also signaling the complexities involved when high-profile figures become the subject of cross-border legal actions and international scrutiny. The ongoing situation demonstrates the interaction between investigative bodies and the processes that govern criminal accountability across jurisdictions, with updates likely to emerge as more facts become available to the public and to analysts following the case.