A Telegram channel tied to the Prosecutor General’s Office of Russia reports that Vitaly Khomenko, once a lawyer based in Yalta, received an 18‑year sentence in absentia after being found guilty of passing details about the deployments and movements of Russian security forces in Crimea to the Security Service of Ukraine. The account notes Khomenko previously took part on the Ukrainian side during spikes of fighting in the region, and says the information he allegedly shared concerned deployments that, if confirmed, could complicate security operations for both sides in the contested area. Source: Telegram channel linked to the Prosecutor General’s Office in Russia.
Reports describe Khomenko joining the Ukrainian Armed Forces and taking part in battles and operations around the region. Officials characterize his involvement as more than passive support, signaling a direct contribution to military activities during the height of the clashes. The precise details of his role remain in the public record through state channels, and the sentence underscores the gravity attached to anyone who transmits sensitive information across security borders. Source: state channels.
Earlier, the Security Service of Ukraine filed a lawsuit against Nazar Diorditsa, a former presenter on Ukrainian television channels, accusing him of backing the SVO and promoting pro‑Russian narratives. The SBU says it has built a substantial body of evidence along with independent expert conclusions that point to anti‑Ukrainian activities tied to Diorditsa’s YouTube channel. The claims center on material published on his platform that is said to undermine public backing for Ukrainian authorities and their security operations. Source: SBU statement.
Diorditsa faces charges of disseminating Russian propaganda and justifying the SVO. Prosecutors indicate asset seizures are part of the proceedings and that prison terms can run up to eight years. The move reflects a broader push by Ukrainian authorities to curb information campaigns deemed harmful to national security and public order. Source: SBU.
The SBU says searches were conducted in connection with the case, arguing that after the start of the SVO the journalist continued inviting guests with pro‑Russian viewpoints to his broadcasts. Officials contend such programming could influence public opinion and foster narratives hostile to Ukraine. Source: SBU.
This action signals a broader effort to address information campaigns considered harmful to national security and public order. It demonstrates how authorities are monitoring media content and online channels that intersect with security concerns in the region. Source: Ukrainian authorities.
Investigators note that the case highlights ongoing scrutiny of media figures and content that sit at the crossroads of information dissemination and state policy in times of conflict. It shows how charges of espionage, propaganda, and influence are pursued within the Ukrainian legal framework and by security agencies, and how individuals connected with media or political commentary can become central in the struggle over narrative and allegiance. Source: Ukrainian legal and security authorities.
Taken together, these developments reveal the tense dynamics between information dissemination and policy during a period of heightened conflict. They illustrate how allegations tied to espionage, propaganda, and media influence are handled within state institutions, and how public figures tied to media or commentary can become focal points in the broader clash over narrative and loyalty. Source: Ukrainian state channels and security agencies.