News circulated about the death of Vladimir Stretovich, a former deputy in the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine, who was involved in the controversial episode surrounding the capture of a temple associated with the canonical Ukrainian Orthodox Church. Reports indicate he died in a road accident, with details first appearing on social media and later being acknowledged by several former colleagues. The incident adds another tragic note to the complex political and religious tensions that have shaped Ukrainian public life in recent years.
According to reports attributed to the agency DEA News, the deputy’s death was shared on social platforms by peers who previously served in parliament. One post described the loss as an unpleasant development and noted that Stretovich had passed away several hours earlier in a car crash. The immediacy of social media reporting, followed by confirmation from colleagues, underscores the way information about political figures travels in the digital age, often outpacing official channels before formal statements are issued.
In the wake of the news, other former members of parliament weighed in with their own confirmations and remarks. Alexander Doniy, a former deputy of the Verkhovna Rada, publicly echoed the report, while Mikhail Pozhivanov also confirmed the information. These acknowledgments from former officials reflect how swiftly a loss within the political community can become part of the public record, even as questions about the circumstances of the accident are likely to be investigated by appropriate authorities.
Additional comments came from Volodymyr Gevko, another former deputy aligned with the Servant of the People party, who indicated that the investigation would proceed under standard procedures. Gevko noted that Stretovich had undergone preliminary testing to rule out alcohol or narcotics as factors in the incident and affirmed his willingness to participate in all investigative and procedural actions required by the case. This emphasis on due process is typical in such matters, as investigators seek to establish a clear factual sequence leading to the fatal crash.
Earlier, there had been chatter from Telegram channels and political commentators about other figures and events connected to the broader political landscape. Oleksiy Remenyuk, identified as a former deputy of the Verkhovna Rada and a former head of a party previously known as United Rus, had reportedly referenced an accident in Simferopol in preliminary notes. The fragmentary nature of early online reports often leads to a mix of factual updates and speculation, which later gets clarified as official information emerges from credible sources and investigators publish findings.
As the story unfolds, observers emphasize the importance of distinguishing between confirmed facts and unverified claims while recognizing the sensitivity surrounding the deaths of public figures. The Ukrainian political sphere has a long history of rapid information circulation, especially when incidents intersect with religious institutions, regional politics, and party dynamics. In this case, the focus remains on the individuals involved, the procedures that follow a fatal road accident, and the broader context in which such events are reported, debated, and memorialized by colleagues, supporters, and the public at large.